The Transmission of Culture in Early Modern Europe 9780812200492

Citation preview

The Transmission of Culture in Early Modem Europe

Published under the auspices of the ShelbyCullomDavis Centerfor HistoricalStudies PrincetonUniversity

The Transmission of Culture in Early Modern Europe Edited by Anthony Grafton andAnn Blair

PENN University of Pennsylvania Press

Philadelphia

Copyright © 1990University of Pennsylvania Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10 9

8 7 6 5 4

3

2

I

Published by University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19I 04-40I I Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Transmission of culture in early modern Europe / Anthony Grafton and Ann Blair, editors. p. cm. "Published under the auspices of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies, Princeton University?' Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8122-8191-8 (cloth) ISBN 13: 978-0-8122-1667-7 I. Europe - Civilization. 2. Europe - Intelleetuallife. 3. Culture diffusion - Europe - History. 4. Grafton, Anthony. 5. Blair, Ann. 6. Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies. CB203.T3 1990 940.2-dc20 89-70750 CIP

Contents Acknowledgments

Vll

Introduction: Notes from Underground on Cultural Transmission Anthony Grafton

1

Invention of Traditions and Traditions of Invention in Renaissance Europe: The Strange Case of Annius of Viterbo Anthony Grafton

8

Inventing Rudolph Agricola: Cultural Transmission, Renaissance Dialectic, and the Emerging Humanities LisaJardine

39

3. Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico Inga Clendinnen

87

I.

2.

4. "Second Nature": The Idea of Custom in European Law,

Society, and Culture

DonaldR. Kelley

131

5. The Making of a Political Paradigm: The Ottoman State and

Oriental Despotism

Lucette Valensi

6. Civic Chivalry and the English Civil War

173 William Hunt

204

7. Theology and Atheism in Early Modern France

Alan CharlesKors

238

8. Honor, Morals, Religion, and the Law: The Action for Criminal Conversation in England, 1670-1857

LawrenceStone

276

Contributors

317

Index

319

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Lawrence Stone and Joan Daviduk for help of many kinds; also the Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts of Princeton University Library, whose staff provided most of the illustrations with miraculous speed and efficiency.

This page intentionally left blank

Anthony Grafton Introduction: Notes from Underground on Cultural Transmission I was in a Printing house in Hell, & saw the method in which knowledge is transmitted from generation to generation. In the first chamber was a Dragon-Man, clearing away the rubbish from a cave's mouth; within, a number of Dragons were hollowing the cave. In the second chamber was a Viper folding round the rock & the cave, and others adorning it with gold, silver and precious stones. In the third chamber was an Eagle with wings and feathers of air: he caused the inside of the cave to be infinite; around were numbers of Eaglelike men who built palaces in the immense cliffs. In the fourth chamber were Lions of flaming fire, raging around & melting the metals into living fluids. In the fifth chamber were Unman'd forms, which cast the metals into the expanse. There they were reciev'd by Men who occupied the sixth chamber, and took the forms of books & were arranged in libraries. 1 William Blake, TheMarriageofHeaven and Hell

Unlike Blake, most nineteenth-century scholars saw the creation of culture as distinct from and more interesting than its transmission.' Jacob Burckhardt, for example, treated the culture of the Renaissance as an essentially new creation rather than a mere revival of an ancient one, and deliberately relegated the study of the classicsto a late and subordinate position in his work. "The essence of the phenomena," he remarked, "might have been the same without the classicalrevival."3 This attitude, rooted in Romantic beliefs about originality and intensity, died hard; but between 1870 and 1914 it gave up the ghost. In its place arose a new scholarship centrally concerned with the transmission of texts, images, and ideas. Aby Warburg and the scholars associated with the institute he founded traced with the zest and intuition of detectives the shifting paths taken by classical ideas and forms in the worlds of Islam and the Western Middle Ages. Literary scholars tracked classicaltopoi from text to text. Iconogra-

2

Anthony Grafton

phers mapped the visual and literary deformation of myths and fables. And historians of the Renaissance and Reformation took the individuals they studied at their word and ceased to dismiss the central importance of the retrieval of texts and other ancient models to early modern culture. The medieval and early modern scholarship that resulted from this reorientation of interests and assumptions was both rich in specificresults and prolific in further applications. It inspired many of the German humanists whose transplantation to England and North America in the 1930S transformed historical scholarship in the English-speaking world; its results have shaped undergraduate teaching on the history of Western culture from the 1930S to the present. This new scholarship, however, accepted and transmitted its own problematic and largely unexamined assumptions. It treated transmission as a simple, one-directional process rather like high-fidelity broadcasting of classicalmusic. The original message was assumed to be pure and perfect. The changes and revisions introduced into it in the course of time were defined as interference-something to be studied with meticulous care, but also to be treated with regret, as a corruption, not an enhancement, of the original. In general, only a limited set of adaptations of inherited forms and ideas seemed to be organic expressions of genuine thoughts and feelings; others were dismissed, for no evident reason, as banal and sterile. And the humanists of the Renaissance emerged as heroes not for the originality of mind and spirit that had attracted Burckhardt but for their painstaking efforts to restore the signal to its initial, correct form. The transmission of culture, in other words, turned out to be rather like the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: a protracted and fascinating process, but one only gloomily illuminated by the glow of decay. If transmission equaled corruption of a primal light, however, retrieval equaled restoration. The new historical insight of early modern intellectuals was assumed-rather than proved-to be a triumph of culture over barbarism and reason over superstition." The high-cultural scholarship which the Davis Center has sampled in 1986-88 still draws inspiration and information from the rich traditions of Burckhardt and Warburg, but it rests on its own new foundations. It assumes that changes in an original form, text, or idea were charged with meaning unless the contrary can be proved-that they normally represent conscious artistic and intellectual decisions rather than failures to reproduce a primal truth. More specifically,medieval and Renaissance changes in classical and biblical originals are themselves not simply innovations,

Introduction

3

but moves in a game some of whose rules were established in antiquity itself. All literary or artistic creations-classical as well as postclassicalresult from choices among preexisting genres and elements and take effect only by the grace of scribes and printers and the conscious activity of readers. The history of cultural transmission has been extended backward into the ancient world itself; even Homer has come to seem an Alexandrian poet, playing nostalgically with tradition. And the assumption that any given stage in the history of culture deserves intellectual priority over others has largely been abandoned. Changed scripts, artistic forms, methods of commentary, and modes of appropriation are the outward and visible signs of life in a tradition that would have the marmoreal perfection of death if it froze in a stable form instead of continuing to undergo creative adaptation. Transmission thus becomes central to the story of high culture in the West; and severalof the essaysthat follow take off from the assumption that alteration in a powerful message is just alteration, not degradation. Burckhardt denigrated the study of transmission because he envisioned cultures as organically unified-as coherent beings that could be studied in any social or individual manifestation. And he found much grist for his analytical mill entirely outside the high world of literature and ideas. He scrutinized a vast range of social and cultural institutions and activities-from waging war to holding festivals, from raising taxes to making jokes-in his Civilizationof theRenaissance,treating all of them as expressions of a common cultural spirit inhabiting an entire society. His catholic interests and generous learning still inspire us; but here, too, his assumptions and methods need scrutiny and revision. Burckhardt assumed that nonliterary forms within a culture-ways of eating or fighting or assembling in public-are simply shared, not elaborately learned. He was more interested in calling them back to life than in investigating whether they had been dominated or shaped by single powerful groups in a larger society-for example, by members of a profession or social order bent on making forms of behavior or public institutions serve their own interest. And he was not fully attentive to the fact-well known to the classicistsof his time-that such forms of conduct have their own long-term history, which also involvescreative adaptation from an existing repertoire and frequently allows the survival of ideas and attitudes that would otherwise seem obsolete or harmful. 5 Many of the sociocultural essays presented to the Davis Center have implicitly or explicitlysuggested analogies between the fates of rituals and

4-

Anthony Grafton

practices and those of texts. Here, too, conscious, active choices are the dominant model for interpreting cultural developments-not unconscious obedience to the spirit of an age or passive acceptance of a hegemonic culture imposed from above. The diachronic story of transmission-its reasons, its modalities, its frequent paradoxes-proves as fascinating as the frozen tableaux offered by an earlier social history. The forms of transmission prove as many in number and as varied in form as the institutions of the complex societies we have studied. Warfare, like cricket, proves to have its own complex, formal rules which encode larger social values, and its conduct proves to be a complex system for passing on diverse messages about these values. As so often in recent historiography, legal sources have yielded particularly rich results. The courtroom and the lawyer's study have turned out to be historical alembics where the methods of social and intellectual historians can be mingled in new forms, producing results of unsuspected richness. And in all cases, transmission across the barriers of class and profession has proved as complex and absorbing as transmission from one period to the next. The passage of chivalric ideas from noble authors to upwardly mobile artisans, the passage of new ideas of honor and sensibility from writers and women of rank to lawyers-and from lawyers to writers and women of rank-offer a rich and rewarding vision of creative adaptation of a world of social practices and spoken and unspoken assumptions. Transmission of culture, then, has proved a productive rubric for discussion-one that has enabled historians of the high and the low, the ritual and the textual, the legal and the scholarly to find common methodological ground and suggestively shared approaches. It has shown that many of the methodological polemics that take up so much space in journals and win so much attention from readers-new sociocultural history berating the old history of ideas for its sterility, old history of ideas berating the new cultural history for its superficiality-no longer reflect the practice of serious historians in any of the fields concerned with transmission. And it has stimulated historians of many different stripes to join in finding good historical reasons for the apparently unreasonable in past practices and arguments. Transmission will never replace creation in the historian's romantic heart. It will not produce new causal explanations for the great events in Western history or the seismic shifts in the landscape of Western thought, but it does provide us with a set of hard, unromantic and revealing questions to ask about many received truths and tenets. In the realm of intellectual history, for example, the study of transmis-

Introduction sion has led us to see that the canon of texts now considered central to the intellectual history of the West does not include some of the most original and influential texts ever written. Works of fundamental originality and import have been defined as peripheral by critics and historians whose criteria of evaluation had more to do with the literary appeal of a work in their own time than with the extent or influence of its original readership. My study of the transmission of rules for judging historical sources shows that the forger Annius ofViterbo played a role comparable in size and impact to those of sober scholars like Valla and Bodin in the creation of modern historiography. Jardine's study of the massive advertising campaign waged on behalf of Rudolph Agricola's De inventionedialecticaby intellectuals and printers shows that pedagogical and professional concerns of a very down-to-earth kind did more than innovations in dialectic to make that technical and rebarbative book a publishing success in the early sixteenth century. Valensi's study of Venetian reports on the Ottoman empire shows that their patrician authors came to see that organism as monstrous rather than healthy, as a classic case of "despotism" -a phenomenon they described exactly as Montesquieu would two centuries later-less because the empire itself had changed, though it had, than because they were incorporating different theoretical assumptions, drawn from Botero rather than Bodin, into their supposedly untheoretical and objective reports. And Kors's study of the printed and manuscript debates of French theologians, those driest and least appealing of writers, reveals them-rather than the philosophes who attacked them so wittily-as the creators of modern atheism. Valla remains central to the history of historiography, Agricola to the history of logic, Montesquieu to the history of political thought, and the philosophes to the history of religion; but in each case a concerted effort to find out who read, published, or advertised what, and when, and where enlarges the traditional context and qualifies the traditional certainties of the field. In the wider realm of sociocultural history, concentrating on transmission can transform one's view of familiar problems and events-can reveal the vital importance of learned skills and artificial codes that traditional historiography has ignored. Clendinnen's vivid recreation of the battle for Tenochtitlan restores the logic to Spanish and Aztec attack and counterattack, discovering in their battle to the death the clash not only of men but of whole culturally distinct systems of fighting. It reveals the Aztecs, in particular, as far more determined and coherent individuals than they are portrayed in traditional historiography. Hunt's reading of preach-

6

Anthony Grafton

ers and playwrights, militia company rules and manuals for education, demonstrates the survival of a late form of the chivalric ideal among the urban youth of seventeenth-century England. More strikingly still, it reinterprets the outbreak of the English Revolution, once thought a triumph for the bourgeoisie, as the triumph of a set of feudal values and practices without which the New Model Army could never have been raised. Kelley's investigation of the legal idea of "custom" uses the afterlife of a single concept as a way into a history of genuinely longue duree-a history that follows the persistent ambiguity of one basic concept from its theoretical formulation by ancient jurists and philosophers, through its practical application by officers of the French crown, to its final assimilation into the modern social sciences. It thus sheds a new light on basic problems of Western social thought and organization. And Stone's study of the action for criminal conversation ("crim. con.") in eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury England uses the growth and final abandonment of a single method for obtaining divorce as a key to the transformation of basic views about morality, honor, and religion and their relation to marriage. These studies differ widely in substance, emphasis, and method. Some deal with transmission of ideas within, some with transmission across cultural and linguistic barriers. Kelley and I follow ideas over many centuries of deformation and revision, Stone and Valensi over shorter spans, Jardine, Hunt, Kors, and Clendinnen over still shorter ones. Some of these studies offer readings of texts, others readings of social actions as well. And two years of discussion in the Davis Center did little to establish the existence of a shared model of culture to which the authors of these and the other papers discussed there would subscribe. Still, all of them converge in their interest in identifying the barriers that impede and the pores that allow the passage of rituals and reasoning from group to group. These new approaches hardly replace Burckhardt's effort to visualize a past culture as a whole. They force us to contemplate texts and artifacts less appealing than the canonical ones of the older cultural history. They divert our attention from familiar and evidently rewarding enterprises, like decoding for ourselves the message of The Praise of Foll»,to less familiar and evidently difficult ones, like reconstructing the various ways in which sixteenth-century readers decoded the texts of the ancients or the mores of their Turkish contemporaries. By necessity, they concentrate more on the process of transmission than on the cultural products that are transmitted; they do not offer new definitions of culture and operate on the basis of highly diverse, implied definitions of it. And by their nature, they are less

Introduction

7

apt than more traditional approaches to produce satisfying generalizations. Yet they also give us a fresh look at texts and topics so worn by familiarity that they seem to offer few rewards to inquirers. They enable us to envision the transmission of skills and ideas as a human rather than a textual process. And they challenge and qualify the holistic visions, even if they cannot replace them. That would seem to be enough.

Notes I. The PortableBlake, ed. A. Kazin (New York, 1946), 258 ("A Memorable Fancy"). 2. Blake was in fact so concerned with the process of dissemination that he tried to control every aspect of the production and distribution of his work. See J. McGaIm, A Critique ofModern Textual Criticism(Chicago and London, 1983), 44-47· 3. Quoted by W. K. Ferguson, TheRenaissanceinHistoricalThought (Boston, 1948), 19I. 4. This account is necessarilyvery abbreviated and does not try to do justice

to the work of individuals. For a much more nuanced approach and rich bibliography, see C. Ginzburg's discussion of the Warburg Institute in his Miti emblemispit (Turin, 1986). 5. Cf. E. H. Gombrich, In SearchofCulturalHistory(Oxford, 1969); F. Gilbert, "Jacob Burckhardt's Student Years: The Road to Cultural History," Journalof the HistoryofIdeas47 (1986), 249-74·

Anthony Grafton

Invention of Traditions and Traditions of Invention in Renaissance Europe: The Strange Case of Annius of Viterbo 1.

A Scientific Prelude Joseph Scaliger encountered two supernatural beings in the course of his long and well-spent life. He saw one of them, a black man on a horse, as he rode by a marsh with some friends. He only read about the other, a monster named Oannes with the body of a fish and the voice of a man. Yet as so often happened in the Renaissance, the encounter with Art had far more lasting consequences than that with Life. The black man tried to lure Scaliger into the marsh, failed, and disappeared, leaving him confirmed in his contempt for the devil and all his works: "My father didn't fear the Devil, neither do I. I'm worse than the devil." 1 Oannes, in the book that Scaliger read, climbed out of the ocean and taught humanity the arts and sciences. "Devil Tempts Man" was no headline to excite the Renaissance public; but "Amphibian Creates Culture" was something very far out of the ordinary. The fish who gave us civilization appeared at the beginning of the account of Babylonian mythology and history written by Berosus, a priest of Bel, early in the third century Be. Berosus drew on genuine Babylonian records but wrote in Greek, for the benefit of the Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter. He and other Near Eastern writers, like the Egyptian Manetho and many Jews, tried to avenge in the realm of the archive their defeat on the battlefield, using documents and inscriptions to show that Babylon, Israel, and Egypt were older and wiser than Greece. Jewish and Christian writers preserved his Babyloniaca. It was in the unpublished world chronicle of one of them, George Syncellus (c. AD 800), that Scaliger met Berosus and his fishy pet, in 1602-1603. 2 The most remarkable thing about the encounter was Scaliger's reac-

Annius of Viterbo

9

tion to it. As ·a good Calvinist he considered Babylonian gods to be abhorrent and Babylonian boasts of the great antiquity of their state to be fanciful. As a good scholar he knew that Berosus was not a name to inspire trust. In fact, as his disciple John Selden pointed out, a century earlier than Scaliger "THERE came forth, and in Buskins too (I mean with Pomp and State) ... an Author, called.Berosusa CbaldeePriest"-a forged text that had become a sixteenth-century best-seller and perverted the early histories of every country in Europe." Scaliger had been one of pseudoBerosus's sharpest critics. Yet in this case he showed respectful interest in what he had every reason to dismiss as mad forgeries. Taking his first notes on the story of Oannes, he remarked only that in another account the same fish was called Oes and added a note on Berosus himself from the early Christian writer Tatian." Compiling his last large work on world history, the Thesaurustemporumof 1606, he included all the Berosus he could find, dated the material as precisely as he could, and boasted of the service he had performed by collecting these previously unknown texts." He did not even remark-as his close friend Isaac Casaubon mildly did, when taking his own notes on the same manuscript chronicle-that "the nature of a certain animal, OannesJ is particularly curious [inprimis mira]."6 Instead, he defended the work of Berosus-like that of Manetho, which he also recovered and published-as genuine Near Eastern historiography. True, the early sections of these texts seemed fabulous, but they still deserved the reverence that goes with genuine antiquity, and they also linked up neatly with the ancients' true accounts of later history. Challenged by the Heidelberg theologian David Pareus, Scaliger developed the latter argument into the more polemical thesis, hardly a new one in this context, that the apparently fabulous histories of the pagans clothed real events in mythical form." He thus preserved and defended what we now know to have been the first genuine large-scale products of the ancient Near East to . reach the modern West-works so alien to the Western tradition that they could hardly be interpreted at all until the discovery and decipherment of parallel records in cuneiform, more than two hundred years later. How then do we account for Scaliger's divinatory prowess-his ability to shake off the prejudices normal to his period and place and see that his Near Eastern fragments, if unintelligible, were also unimpeachable? The rich historiographical scholarship of the 1960s and 1970Soffers us an answer. The humanists of the early Renaissance-notably Petrarch and Valla-tested and rejected many medieval forgeries. They showed that texts like the charter of Julius Caesar that exempted Austria from imperial

10

Anthony Grafton

jurisdiction or the Donation of Constantine that gave the Pope control of the western empire used a language different from the attested language of their supposed authors, ignored facts recounted by reputable historians, and contradicted the beliefs and aims of well-known historical actors associated with them. 8 The theologians and jurists of the mid-sixteenth century, men like Melchior Cano and Jean Bodin, were confronted by a much wider range of supposedly authoritative texts and an even more pressing set of religious and political problems. Accordingly, they went much further than their predecessors. They had not only to purify the canon of its fakes but to weigh the authority of its genuine components. Accepting the humanists' isolated but valid insights, Cano and Bodin tried to fuse them into a general art of choosing and reading authorities about the past. Rather than providing empirical case studies they formulated universally applicable rules for evaluating sources. And by applying these consistently to a wide range of texts, slightly later scholars like Henri Estienne, Joseph Scaliger, and Isaac Casaubon purged the classical corpus of its fakes and pseudepigrapha. They made clear the priority of Homer to his spurious Latin rivals, Dictys and Dares; the priority of Plato to his supposed Egyptian source, Hermes Trismegistus; the priority of Hesiod, who really composed for an audience of shepherds, to Musaeus, who wrote for an audience of Alexandrian grammarians. The image conjured up is of a train in which Greeks and Latins, spurious and genuine authorities, sit side by side until they reach a stop marked "Renaissance." Then grim-faced humanists climb aboard, check tickets, and expel fakes in hordes through doors and windows alike. Their destination, of course, is Oblivion, the wrecking yard to which History and Humanism conduct all canons-and certainly consign all fakes." This vision suggests that humanist critical method was both new and modern. Two centuries and more after the Renaissance, when Karl Otfried Muller confronted the Greek account of Phoenician antiquities forged by Wagenfeld, attributed to a mysterious disappearing manuscript from Portugal (and accepted by the epigrapher and orientalist Grotefend), he needed only to apply the humanists' touchstones to make the odor of authenticity vanish. Pseudo-Philo of Byblos, as presented by Wagenfeld, misunderstood and contradicted the fragments of his own work preserved by Eusebius (though he faithfully retained typographical errors from printed texts). He made many unlikely grammatical and syntactical errors, large and small ("Auch im Gebrauche der Partikeln ist manche Unrichtigkeit zu bemerken"). And he believed in the gods (though he had really been

Annius of Viterbo

II

an atheist). Muller transcended the humanists only in his sympathy for forgery as a work of art. He praised Wagenfeld's Geist and Phantasie, the splendid aptness with which he had caught "the spirit of ancient, GreekOriental historiography." In other respects, however, he was merely doing what came humanistically.10 Happily, a still more recent generation of scholarship has introduced some attractive loops and swerves into this rectilinear and teleological account. Joseph Levine and others have shown that the simple accumulation of data, generation after generation, did more than method could to catalyze the fixing of a modern canon of classictexts and objects. 11 Others have emphasized the distance that lies between the humanists' exposures of fakes and those of the modern philologist. We now know, for example, that Isaac Casaubon obtained one of the great "modern" results of humanist philology-the inauthenticity of Hermes Trismegistus-precisely because he believed firmly in a traditional dogma, that no pagan could have written a book as pure, clear, and theologically correct as the Hermetic Corpus at the early date traditionally assigned to it." History often offered not the subversion but the confirmation of dogma. But by far the most fetching of these new directions of research is that opened up in two elegant articles by Werner Goez. Goez argues that previous historians have omitted not just an important way station, but the crucial one, from their account of the journey of the ancients. The Dominican Annius ofViterbo, who forged the fake Berosus at the end of the fifteenth century, created not only texts but general rules for the choice of texts as well. These rules in turn formed the basis of all later systematic reflection on the choice and evaluation of sources. Some of the mid-sixteenth-century theorists, like Melchior Cano, rejected Annius and all his works; others, like Jean Bodin, accepted them. But all of them developed their theories of reading in direct response to the challenge he presented. Thus, a forger emerges as the first really modern theorist of critical reading of historians-a paradox that only a heart of stone could reject. 13 If Scaliger could tell that his Berosus was real, he owed his perceptiveness in large part to the creator of the false Berosus he despised. In this chapter I propose to examine Annius's role in the development of historical and philological method, both by analyzing his own work and by inspecting the mid-sixteenth-century reactions to it. I hope by doing so to reveal my own ignorance de omni re scibili et quibusdam aliis-and to suggest that the development of modern response to classicalhistories, real and fake, is even more crooked and complex than the tale told by Goez.

12

Anthony Grafton

Mystery, Ancient and Modern, with Seaography In 1498 Eucharius Silber published Annius's Commentarieson VariousAuthorsDiscussingAntiquities. This elegant volume contained original sources by real Greek authors like Archilochus, Berosus, and Manetho; by imaginary Greek authors like Metasthenes (a perversion of Megasthenes, the name of a Greek who wrote c. 300 Be about India); and by noble Romans like Cato, Fabius Pictor, and Propertius (exceptionally, this last text was genuine). These texts, cut up into neat gobbets set in a large and impressive Gothic type, swam on a rich foam of commentary by Annius himself, giving a nice impression of classicalor biblical status. 14 They looked-and read-like a comprehensive and powerful history of the world. They wove biblical history, ancient myths, and medieval Trojan legends together into a single story. Noah-the only pious member of the race of giants that inhabited the prelapsarian world-became the father not just of Shem, Ham, and Iaphet but of a pride of other giants. His sons in turn insinuated themselves into national mythologies of the most diverse kinds, which Berosus neatly laid out in genealogical diagrams ("the lawyers," Annius helpfully remarks, "imitated this example in their use of the form of trees to set out degrees of consanguinity"). 15 The Tuyscon whom Tacitus made the ancestor of the Germans, the Hercules whom Spanish legend made the founder of Iberia, the Etruscans whom Tuscan scholars from Leonardo Bruni on had seen as the true, non-Roman progenitors of the modern Italian city-states, and the Dryius who founded the learned Anglo-Gallic order of Druids all found places in a rich if chaotic story. And spicy details-like the story, perhaps derived from the rabbinical tradition in which it also occurs, of how Ham touched Noah's genitals, murmured an incantation, and made him sterile-gave entertainment value to what might otherwise have seemed an austere and tedious narrative. 16 Annius made his story vivid with devices too many to list. A neat illustration (Fig. I.I) gave material form to pseudo-Fabius's account of early Rome. An introductory appeal to the Catholic kings of Spain-those possessors of the "bravery, victory, chastity, courtesy, prudence, modesty, piety, solicitude" of Moses and David-gave the works powerful patronage." A reference to two Armenian friars as the source of Annius's new texts-and the Armenian oral tradition that Noah was there called Sale "Aramea lingua"-gave it an exotic flavor highly appropriate to that age of lovers of hieroglyphs and readers of the HypnerotomachiaPoliphili." Above all, the content of the work made a powerful appeal to at least

Figure 1.1. Annius's Vision of Ancient Rome. Source: Berosus, BerosusBabilonicus (Paris, 1510). Courtesy of Princeton University Library.

14-

Anthony Grafton

three period forms of historical imagination. Like one of his principal sources, Josephus, whose Antiquitates he plundered, Annius offered new details about Noah and the early kingdoms." These provided precisely the rich context for the biblical history of man that the Bible itself lacks. Martin Luther, for example, urges readers of his Supputatio annorum mundi to realize that events now forgotten had filled the ''vacua spatia" of his chronicle. Many kings and institutions had flourished in biblical times besides those mentioned in the Bible, and most of the patriarchs-as their long life spans showed-had lived simultaneously, not successively." The Annian texts offered precisely the richly detailed backdrop in front of which Luther would have preferred to see the family dramas of ancient Israel performed. No wonder that he found Annius his richest nonbiblical source-despite his discovery of occasional errors and inconsistencies in the texts. No wonder either that the chronologist Ioannes Lucidus Samotheus explicitly defended Berosus's enlarged version of the Mosaic account of the origins of the nations: "Berosus described more [founders of nations than Moses did in Genesis X] because Berosus the Chaldean described as many rulers as there were founders of kingdoms and peoples; Moses, however, described those who had different languages." Differences in forms, he explained, stemmed from the two authors' use of different languages, Hebrew and Chaldean-the latter in any case changed by the Latin translator." On the whole, after all, Berosus stood out among

ancient historians for the large amount of material he had in common with Moses; Guillaume Postel insisted that Berosus had a bad reputation precisely because "he passed down to posterity an account similar to that in the sacred [books], and thus is despised and ridiculed by men poorly disposed towards divine things, because of the very quality for which he ought to be praised and preferred to all other authors." 22 Annius's constant emphasis on Egypt as the source of civilization, on the great journeys and achievements of Osiris, appealed as strongly to that widespread Egyptomania that inspired collectors of hieroglyphs, composers of emblem books, and painters of historical scenes from the late fifteenth-century Vatican to the other extremes of Renaissance Europe, Jacobean London, and Rudolphine Prague." Annius's heavy emphasis on the connections between the biblical Orient, Troy, and the states of fifteenth-century Europe opened up an even more fruitful field for wild speculations. Every nation and city from Novgorod to Naples felt the need for an early history that rivaled or surpassed the ancient histories of Greece and Rome, to which the humanists had given such prominence. No wonder that scholars from Toledo to Trier leaped with alacrity down the rabbit

Annius ofViterbo

15

hole where Annius preceded them. True, he offered his richest rewards to his native Viterbo, that cradle of world civilization where Osiris had taught the arts and left inscriptions; to Spain, where his patrons the Borgia came from; and to the reputation of Egypt. But he also headmuch to offer the French, English, Germans, and other Italians. Hence, he became omnipresent in the historical fantasies and historical frescoes of the early sixteenth century-though, to be sure, the particular interests of those who vulgarized his work had the normal transformative effect.24 Geoffroy Tory complained that greedy readers coerced him to print an edition of the Annian texts without commentary-already a notable changefor his Parisian public in 1510. Something of the nature of that demand can be glimpsed in the Princeton copy, bought hot from the press in 1510 by Robert Nicolson of London, who carefully underlined every passage dealing with the early history of the British (while either he or another reader also marked the sterilization of Noah with a lurid marginal sign)." Until recently, serious scholars have occasionally tried to clear Annius of the charge of forgery-to make him a genuine transmitter of early texts preserved in Armenia or, more plausibly, the gullible victim of a forger. But in the last twenty years research on him has intensified. Italian scholars have dug out and published some of his inedita.And bydoing so they have demonstrated that he not only commented on but wrote his Antiquities. Eduardo Fumagalli has exposed him citing in early letters a recognizable (but not finished) version of the pseudo-Cato that he printed." A work of 1491-92, the EpitomeofViterbeseHistory) shows him already at work on Fabius Pictor. Describing the rape of the Sabine women, he writes: "according to Fabius, an audacious crime in the form of a rape of women took place four months after the founding of the city, II days before the Kalends of September (22 August)."27 Here Annius conflates two passages from one ancient source, Plutarch's life of Romulus, where he read both that the founding took place eleven days before the Kalends of May (21 April) (12.1) and that Fabius Pictor had dated the rape to the fourth month after the foundation (14.1). By combining these two bits of Plutarch, no connection between which is evident in context, he gave an event more lurid than the foundation a nice-if spurious-precision. Later, however, he thought better of this tactic, perhaps because he noticed that his Plutarch an source gave a precise date-quite possibly Fabius Pictor's own-of 18 August for the same event. Accordingly, he made his published Fabius Pictor say only that the rape fell in the fourth month after the foundation, and he transferred precise discussion of the founding date itself to another of his auctores)pseudo-Sempronius." Tactics like these reveal a Chatterton, not a

16

Anthony Grafton

Walpole, hard at work. Annius was no innocent agent or victim but a conscious artist creating a coherent piece of work. Annius, of course, was no fly-by-night forger but a very serious man-the possessor, indeed, of two of the ultimate accolades for a Renaissance Dominican, a miraculous cure that won mention in the Acta Sanctorum and a death by poisoning at the hands of Cesare Borgia. His fakes apparently won him papal attention, Spanish financial and personal support, and even his high office as magistersacripalatii.29 The question, then, is how to appreciate and assess a fine piece of high Renaissance scholarship and art. Here, too, debate has recently flared up. Goez stressed the modernity of Annius's approach, the theoretical sophistication of the arguments by which he tried to validate his fakes. But Bernard Gucnee has tried to find in Annius's critical technique not the triumph of modernity but the culmination of medieval historical method. Annius merely stated in a general form rules long applied in practice by medieval scholars-especially when they needed historical evidence to adjudicate the rival claims of quarreling religious institutions or orders to a-privilege or a relic. Further evidencelike Beryl Smalley's discovery that a medieval forger had been inspired long before Annius to invent a pseudo- Berosus, who described the eclipse that accompanied the crucifixion-seems to confirm the traditional flavor of Annius's heady historical concoction. 30

AMBITION

Ambition, more than any other term, conveys the basic flavor of Annius's stew. He set out, as he says, on a Herculean journey, to do the "duty of a theologian: to seek, discover, confirm, reveal, and so far as possible to explicate, teach and pass on the truth." He claims to offer nuda veritas,unadorned by rhetoric and uncontaminated by falsehood. And he claims that this truth embraces all events in human history, the creation of all significant arts and sciences, and the origins of all peoples. This effort to enfold in a single encyclopedic history the origins of society and culture harks back to the world of the Fathers of the Church, when Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and Isidore of Seville set out to provide similarly comprehensive records. Like them, Annius is a compiler with an ideology. He wishes to reveal the truth; but the truth he reveals is as polemical as it is comprehensive. It displaces Greek culture from its central place in human history and connects the modern West directly to the biblical Near East."

Annius ofViterbo

17

Annius's ambition, moreover, makes itself felt in many details as well as in the larger framework of his enterprise: chieflywhen he forges ancient precedent for practices and institutions of his own time. A theologian of distinction, he had opinions on many controverted problems of his day: the licitness of the montedipieta)the freedom of the will, and the influence of the stars on history." And in the last case at least, Annius built into his ancient texts support for a highly up-to-date practice. In 1480, as Cesare Vasoli has shown, Annius reacted to the Turkish landing at Otranto by issuing a back-dated prediction, based both on the Revelationof John and the revelations of the stars, that the time of Muslim dominance had reached its end and a Christian triumph was approaching. He supported this view with a general argument about the role of the stars as intermediaries between God and this world and a specific argument about the role of the zodiacal sign of Leo in the victories of the Turks. These prophecies-like the many others that circulated through Italy in the last two decades of the fifteenth century, heralded by the preaching of Savonarola and the strange street-corner agitation of men like Giovanni Mercurio-were entirely serious both in detail and in their underlying assumptions. In his Antiquities) almost twenty years later, Annius defended his early position retroactively. He made Berosus describe Noah as foreseeing the Flood ex astris,seventyeight years in advance; his commentary made other giants predict the Flood from the stars; he even quoted the "more competent Talmudists'" opinion that Noah was an expert astronomer as well as a giant. He thus made the kind of astrology he practiced not merely old but antediluvianan enviable disciplinary history, since it chartered astrological prediction as a part of the primeval knowledge of the patriarchs. 33

DERISION

If Annius hoped to replace the texts of the ancients with his own new canon, he had to prove the fallibility of his opponents as well as the antiquity and purity of his own authors. That he did, ad nauseam, at every opportunity conceivable and some that were not. Sometimes he gives the Greeks the lie direct, as in this comment on his forged Xenophon De

equtvocts: Berosus writes in Antiquities 5: "In the fourth year of Ninus (king of Babylon) Tuyscon the giant trained the Germans in letters and laws, Samotes trained the Celts, and Tubal trained the Celtiberians." ... Therefore the Iberians, Samotheans

18

Anthony Grafton

and Tuyscons were clearly the fathers of letters and philosophy, more than a thousand years before the Greeks, as Aristotle attests rightly in his Magic, and Senon, and not the Greeks, as lying Ephorus and the dreamer Diogenes Laertius imagine but do not prove. 34

Annius often gave free rein to his enviable talent as a composer of invective. Graecia for him was preeminently Graecia mendax; the Greeks stood guilty of inventing new doctrines instead of sticking to the old ones of the giants, and were accused of vanity, levity, and virtually every crime but mopery: "Greece and the Peloponnesus were called in antiquity Aegialea, that is, Goaty (Hircina), because they produce many goats and because the race of men there is dirty, fetid and goatish (hircinum)."35 Elsewhere, though, he took a more measured tone, using the Greeks' inability to agree as the outward and visible sign of their interior corruption: ''The Greeks fight and disagree with one another, as is not surprising, and they have entirely ruined history as well as philosophy with their civil war." 36 This combination of invective and argument gives texts and commentary alike a hectoring, even menacing tone, which helped to ensure Annius and his boys a friendly reception not only in the Catholic Italy he knew but also in the Protestant and puritanical north a few decades later. No wonder that Luther, who believed that all of Aristotle compared to the Bible as darkness compares to light, preferred Annius's Berosus to Herodotus and his ilk.

UGLIFICATION

For our purposes, however, Annius's methods matter more than his attitudes. Some of his tools were simple enough. Composing the history of "Myrsilus of Lesbos," he derived his matter from the extraordinarily rich first book of Dionysius of Halicarnassus's Roman history, recently translated into Latin. He then admitted the similarity of their accounts"quamvis qui Dionisiurn in primo libro legit, etiam Myrsilum videatur legere"-and explained them handily: "Dionysius follows Myrsilus consistently in the first book, save in the time of Enotrius' arrival in Italy." "In any event," he wound up for the benefit of the unconvinced, "both of them will be clarified by my commentary." 37 Composing Berosus on Germany, he borrowed Tuyscon from Tacitus and went on his way rejoicing. 38 Elsewhere he transplanted what he read in one source to alien ground. IfDiodorus Siculus described the pillar on which Osiris recorded his expe-

Anruus ot Viterbo

19

ditions, Annius both forged an inscription left by Osiris in Viterbo and made his Xenophon-not the proper Xenophon, of course, but another writer of the same name-describe the similar inscription of Ninus of Babylon." Much of the gristfor his mill came from the great Jewish and Christian writers who had assembled evidence to prove the antiquity and priority of the Iudeo-Christian tradition-above allJosephus and Eusebius, from whom he took the very names of Berosus and Manetho and much else. One of his handiest multi-application tools, the euhemerist interpretation of classical myths as reworkings of genuine events, had already proved an interpretative Swiss army knife to legions of interpreters pagan and Christian, from whom Annius could learn how great men did great things and then became gods." Sometimes Annius moved from the low plane of craft to the higher one of art. When it came to tying the early histories of modern nations to the Bible, the ancient sources left him cast up on a dry beach, clueless and uninformed. Accordingly, he invented, assuming that etymology provided the key that could decipher any tribe's or city's name, making it reveal the lost name of its founder. Text and commentator work together closely in these cases. In the time of Mancaleus [says Berosus] . . . Lugdus ruled the Celts; province and people took their name from him. Lugdus [says Annius] was the one who settled the province of Lugdunum, as his name proves."

"He invents kings like this whenever he has to," so Annius's most brilliant critic in the next generation, Beatus Rhenanus, cried in disgust: "But Lugdunum isn't derived from Lugdus. Dunum is a suffix, like German berg or burg."42But such reservations were rare. On the whole, Annius's method-itself no doubt derived from a careful reading of another ancient source, the Etymologiesof Isidore-carried conviction, even when he went to the imaginative extreme of deriving Hercules from Egyptian Her, "covered with skin," and Hebrew Col)"all," "since he used wild beasts' skins to cover his whole body in place of arms, since arms were not yet invented." 43 Etymology ensured authority. It would be wrong to assume-as some interpreters have-that Annius's novel information all came from his mother wit. Sometimes he made creative use of others' mistakes. In book 5 of his histories, Diodorus Siculus mentions those wise men "whom the Gauls call Druids." Poggio Bracciolini rendered the clause in question as "quos vocant Saronidas"-

20

Anthony Grafton

"whom they call Saronidac."?' It was from this very up-to-date textual foundation, built of only the best sand, that Annius derived his wise King Sarron, who taught the barbarous Celts their letters. Sometimes, too, his information comes straight from sources that were to him classic-but that we have ceased to read. One problem modern scholarship has not solved is this: why does Annius make Archilochus-a poet rather than a scholar, and one about whose character the most alarming information circulated-tell the story of the eight different Homers who inhabited the ancient world, the last of whom, Archilochus's contemporary, won at the Olympics and became the officialreformer of the Greek alphabet? Who ever heard of a scholarly Archilochus? The answer here is simple. At some point in the Hellenistic age, a scholar compiled several divergent opinions about the date of Homer. He attributed these, using a normal late Greek phrase, to hoiperi Aristarchus, hoiperi Eratosthenes, and others. Literally, hoiperi means "those about" or "the school of," but in late Greek it is often merely an elegant periphrasis for the proper name that follows the pronoun peri. This is probably the sense required here. The anonymous scholar also noted that others date Homer to the time of Archilochus. His compilation, in turn, found a place in Tatian's Oration Against the Greeks(c. AD 150) and in Eusebius's Chronicletwo centuries later, in condensed form: heteroikataArchilochon ("others date him to the time of Archilochus"}." The problem arose when St. Jerome translated Eusebius into Latin. Quite reasonably, he turned hoiperiAristarchon into "Aristarchus," hoiperiEratostheneninto "Eratosthenes"; but when he came to the end of the list, he misread heteroikata Archilochonas an elegant variation on the earlier construction, and made Archilochus the author of the last opinion rather than its chronological benchmark." In this case, Annius's mistake was by no means his own. It came from that dramatic era, ~ the late fourth and fifth centuries AD, when Christian scholars like Jerome treated the classicalheritage much as their unlearned followers were treating the pagan philosopher Hypatia. In a larger sense, too, Annius's effort to fill in and add color to the biblical narrative has deep roots in scholarly tradition. Jewish scholars had spent centuries devising aggadotJ supplementary tales about the characters in the Old Testament that rounded out their lives and clarified their motives-like the tale of Ham's enchantment of Noah. And late medieval Mendicants, of course, had done the same for the characters in the New Testament and their favorite saints. It was the late medieval Dominicans who enriched the biography of St. Jerome with the story that he had pushed an insufficiently respectful abbot to the edge of a cliff and allowed

Annius of Viterbo

2I

him to live only when he promised to dedicate a church to St. Jerome. Swiss Dominicans in Bern just after Annius's time adorned a statue of the Virgin Mary with drops of varnish, to show that it wept (and thus possessed holy powers); they even put a speaking tube between its lips and made it issue prophecies and commands." The production of serious fiction designed to fill out the holiest of records was no novelty in 1498. Annius's methods of uglification, then, do not qualify him as either medieval or modern. Classical, patristic and medieval, popular and learned, Christian and non-Christian ingredients are blended here into a stew so rich and complex that the original ingredients and spices are often beyond retrieval.

DISTRACTION

Like any forger, Annius had to keep his readers' confidence-to distract them from the holes in his material, the contradictions in his texts, and the obvious anachronisms of his style ("Alexander," writes Metasthenes, "... transtulit imperium in Graecos"-a splendid piece of Greek historical writing)." He used a variety of means. Some were the normal resources of the ancient and medieval forger-like the claim to have derived his information from a source so distant as to discourage verification and so exotic as to compel belief. If Geoffrey of Monmouth could attribute his account of Brutus et al. to "a very ancient book in the British tongue" offered him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, Annius could certainly borrow some texts from his Armenian confreres and ask advice on Hebrew and Aramaic from his Jewish friend, the still unidentified "Samuel the Talmudist" who told him that "Alemannus" comes from Scythian Ale (river) and the name Mannus." But Annius was both more polemical and more imperious than most medieval forgers. Like other defenders of oral tradition in a scholarly age, he had to provide his own textual warrants of authority. Moreover, he was a scholar in his own right, one who wanted not only to complement but to replace the Greek historians. To bring this about he insinuated, into both his forged texts and his commentaries, a set of rules for the choice of reliable sources. Metasthenes states these clearly: Those who write on chronology must not do so on the basis of hearsay and opinion. For if they write by opinion, like the Greeks, they will deceive themselves and others and waste their lives in error. But error will be avoided if we follow only the

22

Anthony Grafton

annals of the two kingdoms and reject the rest as fabulous. For these contain the dates, kings, and names, set out as clearly and truly as their kings ruled splendidly. But we must not accept everyone who writes about these kings, but only the priests of the kingdom, whose annals have public and incontrovertible authority, like Berosus. For that Chaldean set out the entire Assyrian history on the basis of the ancients' annals, and we Persians now follow him alone, or above all.50

Annius's comment described the ancient priests as "publici notarii rerum gestarum et temporum," whose records deserved as ready belief as the notarial records in a modern archive. And his other authors referred to, repeated, and expanded on these injunctions, creating a sticky, cohesive web of mutually supportive fictions about authority. After working his way through Myrsilus, Berosus, and Philo, the reader knew that each of the Four Monarchies, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, and Roman, had had its own priestly caste and produced its own sacred annals. Only histories based on these deserved credit; and any given historian deserved credit only for those sections where he drew on an authoritative set of records.51 For example, Ctesias the Greek "is accepted for Persian history and rejected from Assyrian history," since he drew his account of the former from the Persian archives (in fact, of course, he invented it) and made the latter Up.52These principles have attracted more attention than any other segment of the corpus Annianum, Rightly, too; for they do seem a prescient effort to separate history, the record of events, resgestae) from history, the literary work of an individual, historia. Certainly they mark an effort to replace the empirical, case-by-casepractices of the early humanists with a general theory. Yet at the same time they have an eerily traditional quality. Guenee points out that when the monks of Saint-Denis and the canons of Notre- Dame disputed around 1400 on the burning question of which of them had which bits of Saint Denis, both sides cited and assessed historical evidence. One of the advocates of Saint-Denis argued that the GrandesCbroniquesde France)which supported his case, should prevail. After all, it was an "approved and authorized" history, preserved in a "public archive." Was new humanist old canonist rewritten in fetching macaronic Latin? 53 In fact, here, too, Annius drew on a one-time classicnow read only by specialists, as Stephens has now shown in detail.54In the last years of his life, the Jewish historian and honest traitor Josephus wrote a polemical work in two books against the grammarian Apion, who had defamed the Jews. In the course of this he repeatedly emphasized the novelty of Greek and the antiquity of Jewish civilization. And to nail this point home he emphasized that the Jewish and Near Eastern texts he quoted rested not on

Annius of Viterbo

23

individual opInIon but on archival documents recorded by a caste of priests: The Egyptians, the Chaldeans, and the Phoenicians (to say nothing for the moment of ourselves) have by their own account an historical record rooted in tradition of extreme antiquity and stability. For all these peoples live in places where the climate causes little decay, and they take care not to let any of their historical experiences pass out of their memory. On the contrary, they religiously preserve it in their public records, written by their most able scholars. In the Greek world, however, the memory of past events has been blotted out. (1.8- 10)

Josephus elsewhere praises Berosus for "following the most ancient records" (1.130), the people of Tyre for keeping careful "public records" (1.107), and the Egyptians for entrusting the care of their records to their priests (1.28).If the contraApionem, available in Latin since the time of Cassiodorus, was little read in the Middle Ages, Annius certainly used it heavily.In fact, in his comment on Metasthenes, Annius made clear-more suo-what his source was. He explains that "Josephus used Metasthenes' rules to make a most valid argument" against Greek views on the origin of the Greek alphabet. 55 This reuse of ancient scholarship, though unusually extended, is far from unique in the corpus. In pseudo-Sempronius, Annius lists a series of opinions, including that of the astrologer L. Tarrutius Firmanus, about the year of Rome's foundation. He draws his datings, as O. A. Danielsson showed long ago in what remains a very useful article, from the Roman compiler Solinus (third century AD).56 He then declares his-or Sempronius's-preference for Eratosthenisinvieta regula) "the unvanquished rule of Eratosthenes." Danielsson read with amusement what he took to be this "echt annianische Phrase." In fact, Annius took it directly from L. Biragus's Latin translation of Dionysius of Halicarnassus's Roman Antiquities. At 1.63 Dionysius explains that he has elsewhere shown the canones(chronological canons or tables) of Eratosthenes to be sound; Biragus rendered Greek canonesas Latin regulae)rather than tabulae or laterculi, and thus misled at least one reader. Annius's rules, then, were neither medieval nor modern. They were instead a classicalrevival, for the most part a restatement of that partly justified Near Eastern pride in great longevity and accurate records that animated so much of the resistance to Hellenization and to Rome-and gave rise in its own right to so many forgeries. We will not find in Annius the culmination of medieval historical scholarship or the origins of modern historical hermeneutics. Nothing ages so quickly as one period's convincing version of a still

24

Anthony Grafton

earlier period. Annius's antiquity looks intensely quaint and entirely Renaissance now. Indeed, it looked quite modern to some of his early readers. Beatus Rhenanus, for example, had no trouble seeing the single authorship of texts and commentary. "While the one milks the he-goat," he dryly commented, "the other holds out the sieve." Pietro Crinito, who preferred to take his fragments of Cato from genuine Roman sources like Macrobius, had no trouble condemning Annius. Nor did Juan Luis Vives, who inserted a powerful attack into his commentary on Augustine's City of God)where it found a surprising number of readers. Nor did the anonymous skeptics of whom Postel bitterly complained. 57 But these exceptions do not disturb the general rule. For every Rhenanus there was at least one Trithemius, eager and willing to embroider on Annius in the most fanciful ways (Trithemius's version of broderieallemandetook the form of his own invented text, that of the Scythian historian Hunibald, who recounted the deeds of the Germans from Marcomir on) -even if he did point out, in an uncharacteristically critical moment, that it was absurd for everyone in Europe to boast of Trojan ancestry, as if there weren't a good many older families in Europe and as if the Trojans hadn't included some rascals.58 In history as in the economy, bad currency drives out the good.

Seven Types of Assiduity: Readers, Rules, and Annius in the

Mid-Century More than seventy years ago, Friedrich von Bezold called attention in a brilliant essay to the great vitality and interest of mid-sixteenth-century historical thought. As he saw, intellectuals of very different origins and types-from the Spanish Dominican Melchior Cano to the irenic Calvinist lawyer Francois Baudouin-all confronted the same set of theoretical and practical problems. All had to find guidance for churches split on points of dogma, kingdoms split along multiple social and religious fault lines, and families divided by both religious and political questions. All agreed that the authoritative canon of ancient texts, biblical and classical, should provide the remedies needed to heal the fissures in church and state and quell the European trend toward religious and civil war. Reading was urgent; but reading unguided by rules led only to chaos, as the Reformation clearly showed. Accordingly, the mid-century saw a massive effort to rethink and regulate the reading of the ancients-particularly the historians, those preeminent guides for practical action in the present. Which sources are which? This simple question burned and stimulated for two decades. 59

Annius ofViterbo

25

Some modern scholars have made even larger claims. They have taken the mid-century theoretical writers, especiallyCano, Baudouin, and Bodin, as doing more than raising questions-as formulating a modern set of rules for weighing sources." But they have not in general examined these in detail in the light of the Annian rules that their authors knew, and they have abstracted the texts on historical method from the wider body of sixteenth-century scholarly literature on related points, as if visionaries like Guillaume Postel and chronologers like Johann Funck did not attack the same problems, respond to the same Annian stimuli, and profoundly influence the theorists. A broad look at mid-century scholars' use of Annius will enable us, I think, to refine and moderate some of the claims that have been made on behalf of individuals or about the modernity of the movement they supposedly made up. We can begin with Postel, that strange man, half visionary and half philologist, who started out in religious life in the early Jesuit order and wound up honorably confined as a madman in a French convent. A real scholar, a man who knew Greek well enough to compile a pioneering study of Athenian institutions and knew Hebrew and other Eastern languages better than almost any other European of his time, Postel had prejudices even more overpowering than his erudition." He saw classical Greek and Roman culture as a perversion of an earlier, Near Eastern revelation, best entrusted in his own day to the virtuous Gauls; he condemned Romulus as a descendant of Ham who had tried to extirpate the virtuous laws and customs established in Italy by Noah, also known as Janus. He knew that some doubted the authenticity of Berosus and the rest, but he

maintained the positive stoutly, accepting the texts and Metasthenic rules as gIvens: Though Berosus the Chaldean is preserved in fragments, and is disliked by Atheists or enemies of Moses, he is approved of by innumerable men and authors expert in every language and field of learning. Hence I grant him the faith deserved by any accurate author. 62

At the other end of the spectrum we find Baudouin, writing in 1560, expressing his surprise that so many of his contemporaries had accepted as genuine the "farrago" of Berosus, with its many obvious falsehoods." On the one hand we have Postel's unquestioning faith and reverence, on the other Baudouin's disgust, like that of a gardener confronted by a poisonous spider; neither position, as one would expect, rests on elaborate argument. Neither, of course, can be simply taken as "modern." Postel, for all his lit-

26

Anthony Grafton

eralist insistence that Berosus's closeness to Genesis was his great virtue, also made an elegant historiographical point: Berosus sometimes told stories that redounded to the discredit of the Chaldeans, and a witness testifying against his own interest deserves belief." Baudouin, by contrast, enjoys great credit now as a theorist of source criticism. Yet his modernsounding argument that while all historians tell lies and make mistakes, all histories are not therefore fabulous, was in fact a quotation from an ancient forgery-the ScriptoresbistoriaeAugustae.65 Baudouin took it from the bravura dialogue at the beginning of "Flavius Vopiscus'" life of Aurelian (DipusAurelianus ii)-one of the several reflections on fideshistorica,good sources and archival documents that adorn the Scriptores.In fact, the "rogue scholar" who forged these texts, with their alluring references to what could be found in "Bookcase 6 of the Ulpian Library," may well have taught Baudouin the principle that a good historian relies on original documents-something that "Vopicus" claimed that he had systematically done (Flavius Vopiscus, DivusAurelianus i; Tacitusviii.r; Probusii). Still, on Annius at least, Postel and Baudouin took uncompromisingly opposed positions. Between the' extremes positions grow even more complex, and the supporting arguments-or at least the supporting attitudes-became more subtle. On the side of credulity we find a writer like John Caius of Cambridge-a skilled Hellenist, like many sixteenth-century medical writers, and one with a sharp interest in questions about lost and inauthentic medical works from the ancient world. In the 1560she became embroiled in a dispute with Thomas Caius of Oxford about the antiquity of the two universities." Trying to prove the antiquity of learning in England, he cited Berosus copiously about the giants Sarron, Druys, et al., who founded public institutions of learning in England and Gaul around the year 1829 after the Creation, a bit more than 150years after the Flood. Yet for all his apparent belief in the learned Sarronidae and Berosus "antiquae memoriae scriptor," he took care to indicate that the giants had not founded Cambridge-that came later-and, more important, that the giants had been so called not because they were huge but because they were aborigines, 67 gCgeneis. True, one or two of them, like Polyphemus and Gogmagog, had reached great heights, but on the whole "giants, like modern men, came in a variety of sizes," even if nature brought forth stronger and bigger offspring in those purer days. By confining his use of Berosus to this very early period, by rationalizing away some of his more bizarre ideas, and by faith, John Caius could avoid applying to the myths that supported his

Annius ofViterbo

27

own position the cutting-edge philological Kritik he applied to Oxford myths about the academic beneficence of Good King Alfred. And a similar attitude-of distrust mingled with unwillingness to give up such rich material-can be found in others, like the historian Sleidanus, the historical theorist Chytraeus, and, perhaps, Caius's younger Oxford contemporary Henry Savile." On the side of criticism we find a number of writers-such as the theologian Cano, the Portuguese scholar Gasper Barreiros, and the Florentine antiquary Vincenzo Borghini-piling up evidence to prove the falsityof the Annian texts. They rapidly found in his richest ancient sources ample evidence of his mistakes. Berosus, in Josephus, explicitly denied the Greek story that Semiramis had converted Babylon from a small town to a great city; the Berosus in Annius affirmed it. Josephus's Berosus wrote three books, Annius's five." And, in any event, Josephus's Berosus knew only about events before his own time, while Annius's Berosus mentioned the founding of Lugdunum which took place two hundred years after his death." These critics, moreover, did not confine themselves to pointing out blunders of organization and detail. They also showed that Berosus wrote the wrong kind of history for his age and place. The Greeks of his time, after all, knew nothing about Western lands like Spain; how could Berosus, still farther east than they, know more? 71 As to the "annals" of the Greeks and Romans, Cano pointed out in a brilliant historiographical essay that none existed. Josephus, Annius's main source, denied that the Greeks had had designated public historians. Livy, the main source for early Roman history, showed by his infrequent citation of public records and his many errors and hesitations that "there were no public annals in the libraries and temples of the gods." Cano's conclusion was lapidary and remorseless: They who say that the Greek and Roman monarchies had public annals against which other histories must be checked say nothing. . . . For it has been shown that no Greek or Roman public annals existed. Therefore there were no authors who described deeds or times in accordance with those Greek and Roman annals."

Here the limits of Annius's own historical imagination told against him. A more modern notion of the practice of classicalhistorians revealed that they were rarely if ever "public recorders of events." Still more complex were the reactions of the Wittenberg chronologer Johann Funck. A student of Philipp Melanchthon and a friend of Andreas

28

Anthony Grafton

Osiander, who wrote the celebrated and misleading preface to Copernicus's De revolutionibus,Funck attacked the records of the ancient world with both philological and scientific tools. These soon enabled him to chip away the authority of one of the deadliest Annian writers, Metasthenes, who covered the centuries after the Babylonian exile of the Jews for which neither the Bible nor any pagan author offered a full, coherent, and acceptable narrative. Like Copernicus-and some earlier Byzantine writersFunck set out to use the data preserved by Ptolemy, the great ancient astronomer. Like them, he wrongly identified Salmanassar, a king of Assyria mentioned in the Bible, with Nabonassar, the king of Babylon from whose accessionon 26 February 747 BC the Babylonian astronomical records used by Ptolemy began. Unlike them, he systematicallyteased out the implications of astronomy for history. He identified the biblical Nabuchodonosor (incorrectly by modern standards) with the king Nabopolassar mentioned by Ptolemy. He pointed out that Ptolemy fixed the beginning of Nabopolassar's reign absolutely, since he dated a lunar eclipse to "the fifth year of Nabopolassar, which is the 127thyear from Nabonassar (= 21/2April 621 BC)" (Almagest 5.14,tr. Toomer). He found a different epoch date for Nabuchodonosor in Metasthenes. And he concluded that Metasthenes-or the archives he had used-must be rejected: Do not let his authority stand in your way. Rather examine how far he stands in agreement with Holy Scripture and Ptolemy's absolutely certain observations of times. That way, even if you do not manage to reach the absolute truth you may approach it as closely as is possible. 73

Having examined a full range of texts, he also decided that ancient historians could lead where astronomical records gave out, so long as they were critically chosen: Herodotus and Eusebius, not Ctesias and Metasthenes, should be preferred." Funck thus pioneered the way along what remains the only path to absolute dates in ancient history. Though he, like the reader he addresses, did not reach the absolute truth, his footing was remarkably sure. Yet Funck found no stimulus in his examination of Metasthenes to raise wider questions about Annius's writers or their archives. Where the early pages of Luther's Supputatio offered white spaces, Funck's swarm with the deeds of the giants and the first seven Homers, all derived from Annian sources. He considered Berosus "the most approved history of the Babylonians" and copied him out joyfully, invention by invention." Thus technical methods of a strikingly modern kind could coexist with a credulity so complete as to be surprising.

Annius ofViterbo

29

Bodin, whose Methodfor theEasyComprehension ofHistory of 1566 has proved a textual Greenland that has killed off interpreters for centuries, struggled mightily with Annius's texts and Funck's ideas. He knew enough to add guarded referencesto the possible falsityofBerosus's and Manetho's fragments in his bibliography of historians-but not enough to do the same for Metasthenes or pseudo-Philo (or, indeed, for Dictys and Dares). 76 He quoted Metasthenes' advice about choosing historians without a word of caution, and praised Metasthenes as a historian who used archival sources and wrote about a people not his own (about which he could be objective)." When it came to the problems Funck raised, he showed a shattering lack of perceptiveness. Berosus and Metasthenes disagreed with "the rule of celestialmotions" not because they made mistakes or used bad sources, he argued, but because they had not recorded the years and months of interregna. If only they had done so, like that "scriptor diligens" Ctesias, all discrepancies would drop away and all good sources hang together in one great Happy Historical Family," If Bodin's willingness to accept pagan attacks on Christianity as the product of milieu and education rather than moral debility marks him out as an unusually perceptive reader, his use of Metasthenes sets narrow limits on his critical faculties and reveals that Annius helped to inspire-and even to shape-his notion of critical method. Even his insistence that the accuracy of historians be judged case by case, not assessed for all time by a single verdict cast in stone-his belief that Dionysius ofHalicarnassus, for example, described Roman foreigners more objectively than his fellow Greeks and therefore should be read in different ways at different points-even this is no more than a development of Annius's argument that a single historian could be accepted for one kingdom and still rejected from the reliable sources for another. Bodin's rich tapestry of methodological admonitions reveals many gaudy Annian splotches when held up to the light. Despite his comprehensive curiosity and psychological insight, Bodin's limits are more striking than his strengths-especially when he is compared with the forgotten Johann Funck, whose work he knew so well. The most complex-and one of the most influential-of all the midcentury readers was Ioannes Goropius Becanus, the Flemish doctor whose OriginesAntwerpianae of 1569 mounted the shrewdest attack of all on Annius, and in doing so drew on much of the literature we have surveyed. To refute the forgeries he collected, in Greek, as many as possible of the fragments of the real authors Annius had travestied and as many collateral testimonia as he could find. Some of his finds were conventional-and perhaps derivative-like his use of Josephus to show that the real Berosus

30

Anthony Grafton

did not think that Semiramis made Babylon great." Others, however, showed far more penetration. Attacking Archilochus-from whom his predecessors had discreetly withheld their fire-he showed that no one ascribed a work on chronology to him. Finding in Tatian the original of the passage on the eight Homers that had inspired Annius to create pseudo- . Archilochus, Goropius printed it, showed that Eusebius must have quoted it in the form that Tatian gave, and argued that the Latin text of Jerome's translation of Eusebius was corrupt and must be corrected or filled out "not as our antiquity-hawker wished, but by reference to what Tatian recounts.T" The original reference had been not to Archilochus's theory that Homer lived in his own time but to someone else's theory that Homer and Archilochus were contemporaries. By diligent search in Clement of Alexandria, Goropius even managed to give that someone a name, Theopornpus." Goropius, in short, found inspiration in Annius not to advance theories but to collect fragments and elucidate them. The Origines Antwerpianae are the distant ancestor of Die Fragmentedergriechischen

H istoriker. Yet Goropius had more in mind than negative criticism and technical philology. He had his own new history of the ancient world to advanceone in which the Dutch were the remnant of the antediluvian peoples and their language, with its many monosyllables, was the primal speech of Adam. To prove this he offered evidence of many kinds-notably the famous experiment of king Psammetichus, who locked up two children, did not let them learn any words, and found that they spontaneously asked for "Becos,"the Phrygian word for bread-thereby identifying the Phrygians rather than the Egyptians as the primeval race (Hdt. 2.2). This showed, Goropius reasonably argued, that the Dutch were the oldest; after all, "they call the man who makes bread a Becker.That king's ancient experiment shows that the language of the inhabitants of Antwerp must be considered the oldest, and therefore the noblest.t''" This revision of world history-which, as even Goropius admitted, rested on novel readings of the sources-was closelyrelated to Goropius's attack on Annius. An essential element of his history of the migrations lay in the denial that Noah and his fellows had been giants; and thus prejudice as well as precision inspired Goropius's sedulous work as collector and exegete. Enough has been said to make several points clear. The mid-century certainly saw a concerted effort to reshape the history of the world and to rethink the sources it should be derived from. But this effort took place as much in the tedious and technical pages of chronologies-and the terrifying and bizarre ones of historical fantasies-as it did in those of writers on

Annius ofViterbo

31

the uses of human historians. No single writer, no single genre, held a monopoly on the relevant forms of criticism; fantasts on some points were the grimmest and most exacting of realists on others. Twenty years of ardent speculation, most of it provoked by Annius, left his forged texts and his tarted-up ancient rules firmly in command of large parts of the historical field as most scholars viewed it. Even those who attacked him most ardentlyoften did so in a partial and half-hearted way; even those who accepted some of his forgeries did splendidly at unmasking others. Goez is triumphantly right to point to the pervasive stimulus Annius afforded, but wrong to overemphasize Annius's isolation and originality. And any effort to ground in the thought of the mid-sixteenth century the rise of a new and operational method of source criticism risks committing what has well been called a "hagiographical anachronism" -the fallacy of attributing to the original and learned of the past ideas and methods consistent with what we now believe in." Baudouin and Bodin, Postel and Goropius are thinkers individual and original enough to need no ex post facto rescue operations designed to prove that they were modern as well.

An Unscientific Postscript Meanwhile, back in Leiden, how did Joseph Scaliger manage not to reject the real Berosus as he had the false one? None of the writers we have examined could have taught him to accept as somehow generally reliable a text much of whose factual content was false. Whence came enlightenment? The answer is clear and definite, though unexpected: it came from nearby Friesland. There earlier sixteenth-century intellectuals had developed a model Urgeschichteof the province. They argued that three Indian gentlemen, Friso, Saxo, and Bruno, had left their native country in the fourth century Be. They studied with Plato, fought for Philip and Alexander of Macedon, and then settled in Frisia, where they drove off the aboriginal giants and founded Groningen. The image is enchanting: three gentlemen in frock coats sitting around a peat fire, murmuring politely in Sanskrit." But around 1600 it enflamed the temper of a critical humanist Scaliger esteemed, Ubbo Emmius. He denounced Friso and his friends as fables and the sources they came from as spurious." And Suffridus Petri, who had given the Frisian tales currency in elegant Latin, mounted a brilliant defense. He claimed that ancient texts now lost and popular songs like the Carmina of the early Romans and Germans, long familiar from Livy and Tacitus, could have preserved the origins of Frisia even if formal

Anthony Grafton

32

historians did not. He insisted that even if such popular sources contained fables, they should be analyzed not scarified: "A good historian should not simply abandon the antiquities because of the fables, but should cleanse the fables for the sake of the antiquities." 86 Oral tradition, in short, needed critical reworking, not contempt. 87 Scaliger knew these debates because Leiden friends of his like Janus Dousa plunged into them, trying to purify Holland 'of its origin myths as Scaliger tried to purify Egypt and Babylon. What is remarkable, again, is his reaction. He praised Emmius but imitated Petri. The tolerant and eclectic attitude Petri recommended for Friso informed Scaliger's approach to Berosus and Manetho. When Scaliger published the Babylonian Urgeschichteand defended it, urging that it deserved at least the reverentia that Livy had shown for ancient stories and arguing that it was a mythical transfiguration of real events, he used a forger's and a fantast's tools to integrate the real ancient Near East into the Western tradition. Even if the forger was Petri rather than Annius, he, too, was a forger who gave philology new intellectual worlds to conquer. Forgery and philology fell and rose together, in the Renaissance as in Hellenistic Alexandria; sometimes the forgers were the first to create or restate elegant critical methods, sometimes the philologists beat them to it. But in either event one conclusion emerges. The rediscovery of the classical tradition in the Renaissance was as much an act of imagination as of criticism, as much an invention as a rediscovery; yet many of the instruments by which it was carried out were themselves classical products rediscovered by the humanists. Paradox, contradiction, and confusion hold illimitable dominion over all; we wanted the humanists to give us a ticket for Birmingham but they have sent us on to Crewe. The only consolation is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the leather upholstery and gaslights that made old-fashioned journeys so much more pleasant than modern ones." My thanks are owed to many friends who have commented on earlier drafts of this article-especially Susanna Barrows, Peter Brown, Jill Kraye, Glenn Most, and David Quint; Carlotta Dionisotti and James Hankins, neither of whom believesa word of it, offered especiallysearching criticisms, to many of which I can as yet provide no adequate reply.

Notes I.

2.

Scaligerana(Cologne, 1695), 123. For Berosus see FrGrHist 680 F I; modern translation and commentary by

Annius ofViterbo

33

S. M. Burstein (1978). For the general context see S. K. Eddy, The King Is Dead (Lincoln, 1961). 3. J. Selden, The Reverse. . . of the EnglishJanus) tr. R. Westcot, quoted by A. L. Owen, The FamousDruids (Oxford, 1962), 36. 4. Leiden University Library MS Seal. 10, fo1. 2 recto, quoting Helladius from Photius, Bibliotbeca,cod. 279 and Tatian Ad Graecos36 (= Eus. Praep. eve10. II. 8 = FrGrHist 680 T 2). 5. Thesaurustemporum, zd ed. (Amsterdam, 1658),Notae in GraecaEusebii, 407-8. 6. Bodleian Library MS Casaubon 32, fol. 52 verso: "Multa ex Beroso ipsis verbis recitantur, quae non memini reperire neque apud Eusebium, neque apud Iosephum. Eiusmodi est pericopa de Babylonia et eius mira ubertate. Sed in primis mira natura animalis cuiusdam oanne, ex multis composito monstro: cuius vox hominem sonat." For the date and significance of these notes-like those in Leiden MS Seal. 10,not discussed in the recent Teubner ed. of Syncellus (Leipzig, 1984)by A. A. Mosshammer-see A. Grafton, "Protestant versus Prophet: Isaac Casaubon on Hermes Trismegistus," Journal of the Warbu1Yand Courtauld Institutes 46 (1983), 93· 7. Scaliger, Notae in GraecaEusebii (n. 5 above), 408: "Haec quanquam in dubium merito revocari possunt, propter prodigiosa vetustatis et longissimi temparis curricula, tam Chaldaica Berosi, quam Aegyptiaca Manethonis, tamen non solum retinenda sunt, sed etiam in precio habenda propter reverentiam vetustatis, tum etiam, quia medii temporis vera cum illisfabulosis continuantur." For Scaliger's late, polemical euhemerism see A. Grafton, "Renaissance Readers and Ancient Texts: Comments on some Commentaries," RenaissanceQuarterly 38 (1985),636. 8. Petrarch, Seniles15.5;Opera (Basel, 1554),II, 1055-58;tr. and discussed by P. Burke, The RenaissanceSenseof the Past (New York, 1970), 50-54; for a text and discussion of Valla's work see W. Setz, Lorenzo VallasSchriftgegen die KonstantinischeSchenkung (Tiibingen, 1975).See also the standard-and splendid-work of W. Speyer, Die literarischeFiilschungim heidnischenund christlichenAltertum (Munich, 1971),99-102. 9. See, e.g., Burke (n. 8 above); M. P. Gilmore, Humanists andJurists (Cambridge, Mass., 1963);J. Franklin, JeanBodin and the Sixteenth-CenturyRevolutionin the MethodologyofLaw and History (New York and London, 1963); D. R. Kelley, FoundationsofModernHistoricalScholarship(New York and London, 1970). 10. K. O. Muller, Kleine deutscheSchriften, I (Breslau, 1847), 445-52 (first published 1837). II. J. Levine, Doctor'WOodward)s Shield (Berkeley, 1977). 12. Grafton (n.6 above); G. Parry, "Puritanism, Science, and Capitalism: William Harrison and the Rejection of Hermes Trismegistus," History of Science22 (1984), 245-70. 13. W. Goez, "Die Anfange der historischen Methoden- Reflexion im italienischen Humanismus," Geschichtein der Gegenwart:FestschriftfUr Kurt Kluxen, ed. E. Heinen and H. J. Schoeps (Paderborn, 1972), 3-21; "Die Anfange der historischen Methoden- Reflexion in der italienischen Renaissance und ihre Aufnahme in der Geschichtsschreibung des deutschen Humanismus," Archiv fur Kultu1Yeschichte56 (1974), 25-48. See also the more recent interpretation ofW. Stephens,

34

Anthony Grafton

[r., "The Etruscans and the Ancient Theology in Annius of Viterbo," Umanesimo a

Roma nelQuattrocento, ed. P. Brezzi et al. (New York and Rome, 1984), 309-22; Stephens, "De historiagigantum:Theological Anthropology before Rabelais," Traditio 40 (1984), esp. 70-89. 14. A good description of the Rome 1498 edition can be found in the British Museum catalog of incunabula, IV, II8-19; I use the texts in the first edition but identify them, for simplicity's sake, by the page numbers of the well-edited and -indexed edition of Antwerp 1552. 15. Annius, Commentaria, 59. 16. Ibid., 80 (the magic took the form of an illusion). 17. Ibid., ep. ded. 18. Ibid., 76-77. 19. For Josephus see F. Blatt, The Latin Josephus,I (Aarhus and Copenhagen, 1958), 13- 15· 20. M. Luther, Supputatio annorum mundi, ed. J. Cohrs; *rke (WA), 53 (1920), 33-34, 36, 26-27· 21. 10. Lucidus Samotheus, Opusculum de emendationibustemporum, zd ed. (Venice, 1546), 11.3, 19 recto. 22. G. Postel, De Etruriae regionisoriginibus,institutis,religioneet moribus,ed. G. Cipriani (Rome, 1986), ch. xliii, 173. 23. See in general E. Iversen, The Myth of Egypt and Its Hieroglyphsin European Tradition (Copenhagen, 1961); D. C. Allen, MysteriouslyMeant (Baltimore, 1970), ch. v; R. Wittkower, "Hieroglyphics in the Early Renaissance," Allegoryand theMigration of Symbols(London, 1977), II3-28. 24. For Viterbo see esp. R. Weiss, "An Unknown Epigraphic Tract by Annius ofViterbo," Italian StudiesPresentedto E. R. Vincent (Cambridge, 1962), 101-20;

for Spain, R. B. Tate, "Mitologia en la historiografia espanola de la edad media e del renacimento," Ensayossobrela historiograftapeninsular del sigloxv, tr. J. Diaz (Madrid, 1970), 13-32; for France, R. E. Asher, "Myth, Legend and History in Renaissance France," Studifrancesi 39 (1969),409-19; for England, Owen (n. 3 above) and T. D. Kendrick, BritishAntiquity (London, 1950); for Germany, F. Borchardt, GermanyAntiquity in RenaissanceMyth (Baltimore, 1970); for Italy, E. Cochrane, Historians and Historiographyin the Italian Renaissance (Chicago and London, 1981), 432-35, and G. Cipriani, II mao etrusconel rinascimentofiorentino (Florence, 1980). Stephens's articles (n. 13 above) emphasize the transformation that Annius's ideas underwent in the course of being vulgarized and rewritten in the sixteenth century. 25. Princeton University Library Ex 2613.1510,with this note on the title page: "Roberti Nicolsoni Londinensis liber Parrhisiis: 1510." 26. See Fumagalli's fine case study, "Un falso tardo-quattrocentesco: Lo pseudo-Catone di Annio da Viterbo," Vestigia.Studi in onoredi GiuseppeBillanovich, ed. R. Avesani et ale(Rome, 1984), I, 337-60. 27. Annius, Viterbiaehistoriaeepitoma,ed. with useful commentary by G. Baffioni in Annio da Viterbo.Documentie ricerche,I (Rome, 1981), 130-31. Baffioni indicates Annius's sources but does not exhaustively interpret his manipulation of them. 28. Annius, Commentana, 432 (Fabius Pictor on the Sabines); 577 (Sempronius on the date and horoscope of the foundation of Rome) .

Annius ofViterbo

35

29. The standard account of Annius's life remains R. Weiss, "Traccia per una biografia di Annio da Viterbo," ItaliaMedioevalee Umanistica5 (1962),425-41. 30. B. Guenee, Histoireet culture historiquedans [,Occidentmedieval (Paris, 1980), 133-40; B. Smalley, EnglishFriarsandAntiquity in theEarlyFourteenthCentury (Oxford, 1960),233-35,360-61 (Lathbury, quoting bk. III, ch. 1of the Athenian historian "Verosus"; as Smalley points out, the forger took off from the elder Pliny's reference to the Athenians' respect for Berosus's skill in astronomy [Natural History7.123]; chronology, like astronomy, was not this forger's long suit). 31. Annius, Commentaria, praef. 32. E. Fumagalli, "Aneddoti della vita di Annio da Viterbo O.P .... ," ArchivumFratrumPraedicatorum50 (1980), 167-99, and 52 (1982), 197-218; V. Meneghin, Bernardinoda Feltree i Monti di Pieta (Vicenza, 1974), 545-50; GiovanniRucellai ed il suoZibaldone,I: "11ZibaldoneQuaresimale,"ed. A. Perosa (London, 1960), 164-70, 179-80. 33. C. Vasoli, I miti e gli astri (Naples, 1977), ch. i; Annius, Commentaria, 48-52, in and on Berosus. 34. Ibid., 16. 35. Ibid., 463, on Cato. 36. Ibid., 238, on Metasthenes. Cf. in general E. N. Tigerstedt, "Ioannes

Annius and GraeciaMendax," in Classical,Mediaevaland RenaissanceStudies in HonorofBertholdLouis Ullman, ed. C. Henderson, Jr. (Rome, 1964), II, 293-310. 37· Annius, Commentaria,453. 38. Borchardt (n. 24 above), 89-91. 39. Diodorus Siculus 1.20.1, 1.27.3-6; Annius, Commentaria, 12 (Xenophon

on Ninus's monument). 40. See Allen (n. 23 above); O. Gruppe, Geschichte tier klassischen Mythologie (Leipzig, 1921), 29-31; J. Seznec, The Survivalof the Pagan und Religionsgeschichte Gods,tr. B. F. Sessions (New York, 1953), ch. i. 41. Annius, Commentaria,188. 42. Beatus Rhenanus, Rerum Germanicarumlibritres,zd ed. (Basel, 1551),191. 43. Annius, Commentaria,518-19, on Cato; amusingly pulverized by G. BarBerosiChaldaeicircunreiros, Censurain quendamauctoremqui subfalsa inscriptione ftrtur (Rome, 1565),71. 44. Owen (n. 3 above), 37, using a printed text of the translation (at 5.31.2). The very early manuscript of Poggio's version in Princeton University Library, Garrett 105, already offers the text in the form that I cite (fo1. 144 recto; according to A. C. de la Mare, whose opinion was kindly conveyed to me by J. Preston, the manuscript was prepared in the circle of Tortelli and contains indexing notes by Poggio himself). 45. Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos31; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis I.II7; Eusebius in Syncellus 2II M. 46. Ierome-Eusebius, Chronicle108, Fotheringham: "licet Archilocus ... supputet"; the same error is in the Armenian version. The origin of the eight Homers-though not their Olympic victories and achievements in magic and medicine, painting and sculpture-can easily be explained. Jerome gives seven possible dates for Homer; euhemerism turns these into eight Homers who lived at different times.

36

Anthony Grafton

47. E. F. Rice, [r., St.Jeromein theRenaissance(Baltimore and London, 1985); M. Baxandall, The LimewoodSculptorsof RenaissanceGermany (New Haven and London, 198o). 48. Annius, Commentaria, 246. 49. For Geoffrey, see G. Gordon, "The Trojans in Britain," The Disciplineof Letters (Oxford, 1946), 35-58; for Alemannus see Annius, Commentaria, 125on Berosus. 50. Ibid., 239. 51. Ibid., 460 (Myrsilus); 75-76 (Berosus); 281(Philo). 52. Ibid., 244 (on Metasthenes). 53. Guenee (n. 30 above). 54. Stephens (n. 13above). For Josephus, see J. R. Bartlett, Jewsin the Hellenisticl*Jrld (Cambridge, 1985),86-89; the translation given below is to be found ibid., 171-76, with useful commentary. The importance of Josephus for Annius had previously received due attention from A. Biondi in the introduction to his translation of M. Cano, L)autoritadellastormprofana (Turin, 1973),xxxviii. 55. Annius, Commentaria,240 (on Metasthenes). 56. O. A. Danielsson, "Ann ius von Viterbo iiber die Griindungsgeschichte (Lund, 1932),1-16. Roms," CorollaArchaeologica 57. Beatus Rhenanus (n. 42 above), 39; P. Crinito, De honestadisciplina,ed. C. Angeleri (Rome, 1955),460; for Vives's comment on Augustine, City of God 18, see the interesting transcript made by C. Peutinger in his copy of Annius, published by P. Joachimsen, Geschichtsauffassung und Geschichtschreibung in Deutschland unter dem EinflussdesHumanismus, I (Leipzig, 1910;repro Aalen, 1968), 271n. 24. 58. K. Arnold, Johannes Trithemius (1462-1516) (Wiirzburg, 1971), 16779; J. Trithemius, "Chronologia Mystica," Opera historica,I (Frankfurt, 1601), unpaginated. 59. F. von Bezold, "Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der historischen Methodik [1914]," Aus Mittelalter und Renaissance(Munich andBerlin, 1918),362-83. 60. See the literature cited in n. 9 above. Most previous critiques-e.g., the powerful one of E. Hassinger, Empirisch-rationaler Historismus(Bern, 1978)-have addressed issues different from those to be discussed below. 61. See, e.g., W. J. Bouwsma, ConcordiaMundi (Cambridge, Mass., 1957); H. J. Erasmus, The Origins of Rome in Historiographyfrom Petrarchto Perizonius (Assen, 1962). 62. G. Postel, Le ThresordesProphetiesde Pilniven, ed. F. Secret (The Hague, 1969), 67. See also 76, where he describes the Annian Cato as drawing material "des monuments publikes," and Postel (n. 22 above). 63. F. Baudouin, De institutionebistoriaeuniversaeet eius cum iurisprudentia coniunetioneprolegomenon libri duo (Paris, 1561),48-49. 64. Postel (n. 22 above), 195-99. Cipriani shows that Postel's beliefs were shared by many members of that intellectually advanced institution, the Florentine Academy; one of them, Pier Francesco Giambullari, found what seemed vital corroborative evidence in a then unpublished passage in Athenaeus, for which Postel thanked him fervently. It is a pity that Postel's own full-scale defense of the forgeries does not survive. See ibid., esp. 15-23.

Annius of Viterbo

37

65. Baudouin (n. 63 above), 44. 66. For Caius see V. Nutton, "John Caius and the Eton Galen: Medical Philology in the Renaissance," Medizinhistorisches Journal 20 (1985),227-52; for the Oxford/Cambridge debate, a distant ancestor of the Boat Race, see Kendrick (n. 24 above). 67. J. Caius, De antiquitate CantabrigiensisAcademiae libri duo (London, 1568),21-25; Caius's etymology of "giant" is an ancient one. 68. See, respectively, J. Sleidanus, De quatuor monarchiislibri tres (Leiden, 1669), II; Franklin (n. 9 above), 124--25; Savile in Bodleian Library MS Savile 29 (his "Prooemium mathematicum" of 1570),fo1. 32 recto, where a reference to Berosus's defloratioof Chaldean history is underlined and bracketed. An afterthought? 69. M. Cano, Loci theologiciII.6; Opera (Venice, 1776), 234; Barreiros, Censura (n. 43 above), 26-30. 70. Ibid., 35-37; V. Borghini, Discorsi(Florence, 1584-85), I, 229. Borghini had help from O. Panvinio (II, 305). 71. Barreiros (n. 43 above), 56-59, where Barreiros's own chronology seems a bit shaky. For an effort to reply see Postel (n. 22 above). 72. Cano (n. 69 above), 230-32. 73. J. Funck, Commentariorumin praecedentemchronologiamlibri decem(Wittenberg, 1601),fo1.B iiij recto. 74. Ibid., fo1. [B v verso]. 75. Ibid., fo1. [A v verso]. Funck says that he has taken his matter "ad verbum fere" from Berosus and the Bible; his genealogy of the descendants of Noah (fols. A iiij verso- [A v recto]) confirms this. ed. P. Mesnard (Paris, 76. J. Bodin, Methodus, ch. x; Oeuvresphilosophiques, 1951), 254-57· 77. Ibid., iv, 126,praising Metasthenes, Polybius, and Ammianus Marcellinus for their use of actapublica and their objectivity when discussing other nations. 78. Ibid., viii, 24-0.For a modern view ofCtesias, whose ancient critics Bodin knew, see R. Drews, The GreekAccounts of Near Eastern History (Cambridge, Mass., 1973),103-16 (109: "all the details were invented"). 79. J. Goropius Becanus, OriginesAntwerpianae(Antwerp, 1569), 344-45· 80. Ibid., 357-62. 81. Ibid., 362; Goropius goes on to quote a fragment from bk. 43 of Theopompus's Philippica,in Latin; this dates Homer 500 years after the fall of Troy (Clement of Alexandria StromateisI.II7.8 = FrGrHist II5 F 205)-that is, to the time of Archilochus. 82. Ibid., ep. ded. See in general A. Borst, Der Turmbau vonBabel (Stuttgart, 1957-63), IILI, 1215-19. 83. N. Swerdlow, "Pseudodoxia Copernicana: or, Enquiries into very many received tenents and commonly presumed truths, mostly concerning spheres," Archivesinternationalespour Pbistoiredessciences26 (1976), 108-58. 84. S. Petri, Apologia. . .pro antiquitate et origineFrisiorum(Franeker, 1603), 15-17, summarizes the Frisian U1lJeschichte. 85. U. Emmius, De origine atque antiquitatibus Frisiorum, in his Rerum Frisicarumbistoria(Leiden, 1616),7ff.

38

Anthony Grafton 86. Petri (n. 84 above), 40-41. 87. See further E. H. Waterbolk, "Zeventiende-eeuwers in de Republiek over

de grondslagen van het geschiedverhaal. Mondelinge of schriftelijke overlevering," "Reacties op het historisch pyrrhonisme," ibid., 15(1960),81-102; cf. in general S. Schama, TheEmbarrassmentofRiches(New York, 1987), ch. ii. 88. See further the classical article by C. Mitchell, "Archaeology and Romance in Renaissance Italy," in Italian RenaissanceStudies, ed. E. F. Jacob (London, 1960), 455-83.

Bi,jdragenvoorde Geschiedenis der Nederlanden12 (1957), 26-44;

LisaJardine Inventing Rudolph Agricola: Cultural Transmission, Renaissance Dialectic, .and the Emerging Humanities

2.

Introduction This piece of work attempts a study of the transmission of high culture which sets the traditional internal account of continuity and change amongst texts in a broader historical context.' My study singles out an individual-Erasmus of Rotterdam-in an unfamiliar way: not as a Renaissance "self" (however fashioned), but as the center to which a large, specificpart of the print-related activities of a much less well-known group emendatores,and castiqatores, was directed. of authors, commendatores, It is into this textual, Erasmian context that I reinsert the published works of Rudolph Agricola. I argue that the external, shaping pressures on the production of Agricola's De intentione dialectica(a work whose influence on Renaissance developments in dialectic is generally agreed to have been considerable) have consequences for our understanding and analysis of the text as subsequently transmitted. We are looking at a particular, crucial moment in the northern Renaissance of learning, and the particular preoccupations of that moment, in the Netherlands, have a necessary part to play in our understanding of the texts it produced. Underlying this study is my concern that we traditional intellectual historians should revise the history of the transmission of high culture so as to be able to integrate it with the powerful and vigorous recent work on cultural transmission as a whole, and to contribute to an account that registers "cultural currents" as continuously producing parallel and interactive transmission and impact.' The present study is something like my own first attempt to indicate what such a revised history of the transmission of high culture would be like.3 Rudolph Agricola's De intentione dialecticawas the higher-education

40

Lisa Jardine

manual of argumentatio (argumentation) most widely specified, bought, and used in schools and universities throughout Protestant Europe, between the early decades of the sixteenth century and the mid-seventeenth century (when attitudes toward logic/dialectic in the curriculum altered so as to render it irrelevant). 4 The first printed edition appeared in 1515, published in Louvain and with the name of the distinguished theologian Martin Dorp on the title page. Between 1515and 1600 it went through more than seventy (known) editions (including epitomes)." Not surprisingly, therefore, Agricola's De inventionedialecticahas been the object of a considerable amount of attention from intellectual historians (particularly historians of logic) and from historians of education. One might cite three key works as initiating Agricola as a focus for interest: W. J. Ong's extremely readable and influential book, Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, Mass., 1958); W. S. Howell's much-cited Logic and Rhetoricin England IS00 - 1700 (New York, 1961); and C. Vasoli's monumental and highly regarded La dialetticae la retoricadell'umanesimo(Milan, 1968).6 I stress the readability and monumental nature of such work in order to indicate that although this was specialist work, it had a considerable impact beyond the histories of logic and "method," so that Agricola's name crops up (with these bibliographical items attached) quite widely in Renaissance intellectual history and in histories of humanism. In the "hard" (i.e., difficult to penetrate) history of logic, Agricola's name, his textbook, and its influence were already firmly established by Prantl in the late nineteenth century, and the high assessment of his importance (though without a very consistent version of how he was important) has been sustained to the present in a whole sequence of "authoritative" publications, including work of my own. 7 These authorities have tended to divide into two camps: those who have regarded Agricola's De inventione dialeeticaas an integrated part of developing Renaissance logic and dialectic (a camp that includes Vasoli and myself), and those who have regarded it as an aberration or a distraction, diverting "Renaissance thought" from knotty technical problems of validity and inference (the camp led by the Kneales, who notoriously blame Agricola for "starting the corruption" in logic but cannot even get his name right)." Who was Rudolph Agricola? He was a distinguished teacher, born in Baffio, near Groningen in the Low Countries, in 1444. He trained with Battista Guarino, son of the great Guarino, in Ferrara. He taught Alexander Hegius Greek, who in turn taught Erasmus at Deventer. In addition to being a considerable scholar of Latin and Greek, he was a poet, musician,

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

41

and painter of note. He died in Heidelberg, where he had gone to teach at the invitation of Johann von Dalberg, Bishop of Worms, in 1485.9 All secondary sources are agreed that he was an extremely important influence on the development of northern European humanism. 10 As early as 1971, however, in an important article Terrence Heath drew attention to the curious lag of nearly forty years between the completion of Agricola's best-known work, De inventionedialectica(around 1479), and its availability in printed form." Furthermore, Heath suggested that in the first instance the influence of that text in the early decades of the sixteenth century (its prominence in northern European curricula and university statutes) had to do precisely with its availability.It went into print at the moment when more orthodox Aristotelian and scholastic texts were discarded both because of their explicitly Catholic scholia and because those commentaries assumed a student body destined for the study of philosophy and canon law, rather than one simply gaining an education in the liberal arts." So we have an author, an acknowledged influential humanist teacher of the late fifteenth century. We have a key text, judged to be a crucial connecting link in a chronological development (assumed linear and direct) of western European thought, at its logical core. And we have a gap, which is noticed by one such scholar, and judged to be significant-the gap between Agricola's writing the work and its appearance in print. That is where this study begins.

''What has a dog to do with a bath?" In 1503 Jacobus Faber of Deventer published the Carmina and assorted minor works of his and Erasmus's old schoolmaster Alexander Hegius (who had died in 1498).13 The prefatory letter to the Carmina was addressed to Erasmus and drew attention to the proverb "Canis in balneo" ("A dog in a bath") in the 1500 Paris edition of Erasmus's Adages (Adagiorum collectanea)14 (Fig. 2.1). (The phrase indicates irrelevance or inappropriateness: "That is about as appropriate as a dog in a bath," i.e., it doesn't belong there at all.) Faber was anxious to draw the reader's attention to Erasmus's linking of the names of Hegius and Agricola in a digressionary note in the adage. 15 On the face of it, it seems clear what Faber is doing. He wishes to enhance the reputation (and historical importance) of Alexander Hegius

42

Figure

Lisa Jardine

2.1.

Erasmus and his tools-detail

of Albrecht Durer's woodcut portrait

of Erasmus. Source: Engravingsreproducedby the heliotypeprocesschieflyfrom the GrayCollection,Harvard College(Boston, n.d.). Courtesy of Princeton University Library.

by pointing out a connection between Hegius and the already well-known humanist Erasmus." In the aside in the "canis in balneo" adage, Erasmus had indicated that Hegius had been part of his own intellectual heritage (though Faber wishes to stress that Hegius's importance is greater than that assigned him by Erasmus, thus rhetorically magnifying the eulogy by association) .17 But if Erasmus "validates" Hegius's reputation in this way, the prefatory letter serves his purposes as well. It closes with the following: Enough on this subject. For the rest, dearest Erasmus, I fail to comprehend why you have not given me, as we agreed, the Greek oration of Libanius when you have done it into Latin; I am waiting for it. I can glimpse your intention; you have decided to add to my Libanius the books you are now engaged upon: on famous metaphors, on ecclesiastical allegories, on allusions in classical authors, and on witty sayings and replies. This is the one thought I console myself with that I may

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

4-3

bear patiently the rather long delay. So now accept our teacher's most important poems, to which will also be added, when I see that it would please you and my other kindly readers, his enquiries into a variety of topics, composed in dialogue form; in this respect he follows the example of Plato, who was most intimately known to him. Finally I shall see to it that any of Rodolphus Agricola's works that come to hand here are sent to you, except those that have been published in previous years and are now in the booksellers' shops. 18

So the letter provides a "puff" for Erasmus- in particular his forthcoming Libanius (but also promising a number of other, vaguely specified works, none of which in fact ever saw print under such titles). It also responds, apparently, to Erasmus's tribute to Agricola (in the "canis in balneo" adage), by indicating that some collection of unpublished Agricola works ("praeter ea que superioribus annis edita apud bibliopolas exponuntur") is also forthcoming. 19 In fact, I think that Faber's prefatory letter to Hegius's Carmine is a more purposive document even than this, and that the final paragraph actually tells us that any "events" with which the letter deals have to do with books and in particular with constructing reputations out of genealogies of books. 20 The last paragraph of Faber's letter, I suggest, seeks to establish a coterie.within a printing community. "I fail to comprehend why you have not given me, as we agreed, the Greek oration of Libanius when you have done it into Latin. . . . I shall see to it that any of Rodolphus Agricola's works that come to hand here are sent to you, except those that have been published in previous years and are now in the booksellers' shops." Faber is in Deventer, where the school, at which he teaches, is closely associated with the publishing houses ofPaffraet and de Breda." Erasmus is publishing his Libanius with Martens at Louvain. They have "agreed" to exchange "in press" volumes. And indeed, as we shall see, a volume of Agricola works largely identical with Faber's was published by Martens (with Erasmus's support) at Louvain in 1511.22 In the 1508 much expanded edition of the Adages (Adagiorum chiliades tres . . .), published by Aldus Manutius in Venice, "Quid cani et balneo" (as it now became) contains a much enlarged reminiscence on Erasmus's teachers and becomes, in effect, an extended conventional panegyric, addressed in the first place to Agricola and then to Hegins." But in spite of its touchingly intimate tone (on which several Erasmus scholars remark), this long "digression," as Erasmus himself calls it, is actually a curiously precise account of the published remains of Agricola currently available, of which the following forms the core:

44

Lisa Jardine

There are a few literary remains of his work, some letters, poems of various kinds; the Axiochusof Plato translated into Latin, and a version of Isocrates' ToDemonicus. Then there are a couple of lectures given in public session in the University of Ferrara, for it was there he both learnt and gave open lectures. There are lying hidden in some people's possession his treatises on dialectic. He had also translated some of Lucian's dialogues. 24

These are indeed precisely the works of Agricola which were available at that moment, more than twenty years after his death. The translation of pseudo- Plato's Axiochus was printed by Richard Paffraet around 1480. Hegius lived in Paffraet's house during his time as head teacher at the Deventer school, and Paffraet was the publisher of his Farrago(1480-85, 1490, 1495),25 as well as of Jacobus Faber's posthumous edition of his Carmine and Dialogi which carried the prefatory letter to Erasmus discussed above." The translation of Isocrates' Praeceptaad Demonicum appeared around 1480. 27 The "Anna mater" poem, and individual letters were in print, generally as additional items in other people's volumes." The juxtaposition of the De inventionedialectica"lying hidden in some people's possession," and the Lucian translations ("He had also translated some of Lucian's dialogues") suggests Erasmus had not seen the latter, but inferred their existence from one of Agricola's (published) letters, in which he promises to send a Lucian translation to Hegins." And, indeed, the information that "at the very end of his life [Agricola] had bent his whole mind on the study of Hebrew and the Holy Scripture" (one of the few "facts" the panegyric contains) is to be found in that same published letter." The lectures (delivered at Pavia and Ferrara in 1473, 1474, and 1476) were widely spoken of and acclaimed." In other words, the additional information about Agricola's life and works, with which Erasmus embellishes the expanded adage, is derived entirely from printed remains (rather than from personal reminiscences, though the tone certainly suggests the latter). In 1508 Jacobus Faber brought out a small (and, contrary to his promise, almost entirely derivative) volume of Agricola's works. 32 Its title page manages to refer both to Alexander Hegius and to Ermolao Barbaro's epitaph for Agricola, which had figured prominently in Faber's earlier attempt to link his Carmine with Erasmus's Adagia. It runs as follows: Rudolph Agricola's "Paraenesis," or advice on the method by which study should be pursued, and which authors ought to be followed; together with a letter from the same to Alexander Hegius, headmaster at Deventer school. And Isocrates's "Paraenesis ad Demonicum," translated from the Greek by Rudolph Agricola. The verses of Ermolao Barbaro on the tomb of Rudolph Agricola of Groningen run:

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

4-5

Under this stone, the jealous Fates decreed The Frisian hope, his country's light, should come, Rudolph Agricola; in life, indeed, He brought such praise to Germany his home As ever Greece could have, or ever Rome. 33

But the contents of the volume had largely been available in print before. So the volume makes a gesture toward fulfilling Faber's previous, rather grander commitment to Erasmus, that he will "see to it that any of Rodolphus Agricola's works that come to hand are sent to you, except those that have been published in previous years and are now in the booksellers' shops." I am arguing that such "gestures" are "purposive" -are part of a kind of publishing performance (which appears to fulfill a commitment to the public on behalf of Erasmus to make good the deficiency in the available works of the man supposed to be a major influence on northern European humanist pedagogy, but actually provides no new foundation to build on at all). Erasmus's own next "press" pronouncement on the subject was more prominently placed. In the new prefatory letter to the 1514-edition of the popular De copiaaddressed to the printer Matthias Schiirer, he wrote: "We are eagerly expecting at any moment the Lucubrationesof Rudolph Agricola (a truly inspired man). Whenever I read his writings, I venerate and give fervent praise to that sacred and heavenly spirit." 34 This is, in fact, a fragment of a more extended and rather curious exchange with the Schiirer publishing house about an Agricola volume. In February 1514, in the preface to an edition of Pliny's Letters)which he had seen through the Schiirer press, Beams Rhenanus had referred to some unpublished "Lucubrationes" of Agricola as being in his possession." Erasmus's De copiapreface is in effect a response to that announcement (placed equivalently prominently). 36 A year later, however, Rhenanus had apparently made no progress, for we find another Schurer corrector, Nicholas Gerbell, telling Erasmus in a letter that Schiirer is anxious for Rhenanus to send him the works, so they can be corrected and published without delay." In July 1517Erasmus was still asking the Schiirer printing house "why the publication of Rodolphus Agricola's papers is so long postponed," 38 and in August Erasmus himself is offering to "do his duty as a friend," and correct them himself, if Schiirer will send them to him." At this point Schiirer himself informed Erasmus that he had mislaid a crucial item from the collection while moving house, but would send the whole thing the moment he GOuldfind it ("I have been through the whole house looking for it!") 40 Did Schurer ever have such a

46

Lisa Jardine

manuscript (no such collection ever appeared)? Or was he hoping to keep Erasmus interested enough in his publishing house to place some of his own works there (as indeed he subsequently did)? 41 Two months before the publication of the new De copiapreface, in August 1514, Erasmus had himself published a minor work by Agricolahis Latin translation of Isocrates' Paraenesisad demonicum-in the edition of his own Opusculapublished in Louvain by Thierry Martens, thus apparently making his own contribution to the retrieval of the "truly inspired man'''s works.42 However, in spite of the assurance of the title page of this work ("quibus primae aetati nihil prelegi potest neque utilius neque elegantius"), the Agricola translation from Isocrates did not in fact appear for the first time in this volume. It had been printed twice before since 1500 (and several times before 1500), in both cases with Erasmus's own explicit encouragement. In 1508 Jacobus Faber had included it in his Agricola volume." In 1511 it also appeared in a volume of Agricola opusculaedited by Peter Gilles and published by Thierry Martens (the publisher of the Erasmus Opusculavolume, as of many other of his works) at Antwerp." There is further evidence that this annexing of an already available Agricola fragment was something of a token gesture, in the prefatory letter that accompanies it in editions from 1517 onward." In it Erasmus tells the reader that he has "collated this treatise afresh with the Greek copies" and has "found one sentence missing, which in any case [he] suspected might be spurious." He continues: "It has, however, been inserted, with a note [or mark], for fear anyone might suppose it omitted by accident, since it appears in current texts. Further, in another passage Rodolphus seems to have read t/Jvx.fJ~ where the printed Greek copies have rox.'YJ~."46 In fact, neither the note nor the emendation is to be found in the printed text (presumably Erasmus did not have time, or did not care to bother himself with it).47 In 1505 or thereabouts Erasmus had written from Paris to Peter Gilles, urging him to collect together such of Agricola's works as he could for publication: "Vale et vndecunque potes collige Rodolphi Agricolae opuscula tecumque deporta."48 In 1511 Gilles did indeed edit and see through the Martens press such a volume; once again the volume is apparently a compilation of scattered, already published works." We should note that the prefatory letter to this volume is addressed by Peter Gilles to Martin Dorp, a printing-house colleague of his, and another friend of, and proof corrector for, Erasmus." It was not until 1528 that Erasmus was able himself to lay his hands on

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

47

and publish a "first edition" of an Agricola opusculumin a volume of his own works. 51 This was the "Oratio in laudem Matthiae Richili," which appeared in a collection of popular Erasmus teaching works, published by Frobenius in Basel, and including the De rectapronuntiatione and the Ciceronianus." In neither this nor any of the three subsequent editions of this volume does Agricola's name, or the title of his oration, figure on the title page. But Erasmus includes another textual note expressing his earnest desire that more of Agricola's works should be brought to light, and the Ciceronianusitself contains another fulsome tribute to Agricola's standing as a Ciceronian and a humanist in the roll call of great "modern" figures in humane learning. 53 But by this time, as we shall see, Agricola publishing had opened up, largely owing to the efforts of Alardus of Amsterdam (Fig. 2.2), another proof corrector for the Thierry Martens publishing house, and another friend and protege of Erasmus. Alardus, however, belongs in the section on the recovery of the De inventionedialectica.He is 'crucial to our story, and perhaps its picaresque hero. I have labored this publishing history in order to insist that Erasmus's published references to Agricola, and his subsequent inclusion of minor works by Agricola alongside his own, constitute a narrative to which we need to give attention. As I have tried to develop this narrative, the tale which seems to be unfolding is one of a series of publishing gestures, simulating spontaneous tributes to one's (Erasmus's) intellectual antecedents, and matching textual "discoveries": printed pronouncements about the great heritage of Agricola/Hegius; calls for making accessible Agricola's works after the appearance of Hegius's; the appearance of collections apparently answering such calls, sponsored by individuals standing in a direct (printing) relationship to Erasmus, but which are actually collations of existing incunabula fragments. This is not a linear narrative, however-at least, I have been unable to think of a way of telling it in linear fashion. So at this point we have to go back to 1503and that letter from Faber to Erasmus concerning Hegius and what the dog has to do with the bath.

"I think immediately of Rodolphus Agricola, the former teacher of my own teacher Alexander" In addition to the highly specific bibliographical printer's material, Erasmus's adage "What has a dog to do with a bath?" launches two important

Si Logifalsuseftprecellerc in srte, RodfJ/pbll111 PAr.IAUS 4gricolanl debita"lte~l nunet,

Figure 2.2. Alardus of Amsterdam (1491-1544). Source: Nicolaus Reusner, leones siveimaginesvirorumliterisillustrium (Strasbourg, 1587), f. G V verso. Courtesy of Princeton University Library.

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

4-9

general themes, championed by Europe's most popular and prolific educationalist. The first is the "genealogy of teachers" theme-a kind of - humanist laying on of hands: Agricola taught Hegius taught Erasmus. The second is the "can anyone find me the great man's lost works?" theme. As twentieth-century readers, we might feel that buried in a digression in a compendious reference work, the latter could hardly be guaranteed the reader's attention. But as we have seen, this textual addition, orchestrated in collaboration with an editor friend from the same academic stable, is only one of a number of careful moves establishing an intellectual pedigree for Agricola (and thereby Erasmus), and advertising for those in possession of Agricola's unpublished works in manuscript to come forward. 54 Jacobus Faber links Hegius to Agricola, around the tag from Erasmus's Adages.When Erasmus expands that reference in the revised edition of his work, he specifiesthat the link is a letter from Agricola via Hegius, read to Erasmus apparently while he was at the Deventer school: I remember having learnt [this adage] from a certain very learned letter of my beloved Rodolphus, at a time when I was a mere child and as yet ignorant of Greek. In this letter he is trying to persuade the town council of Antwerp, with conviction and eloquence, that they should appoint as master of their school someone proficient in liberal studies, and not (as they usually do) entrust this office to an inarticulate theologian or naturalist, the sort of man who is sure he has something to say about everything but has no notion of what it is to speak. "What good would he be in a school? As much good, to use the Greek repartee, as a dog in a bath."

Transmission, in other words, is rigorously textual here-not the great man to his pupil, who in his turn passes it on to his pupil, but a letter from a remote great man, sent to his one-time pupil (not in fact a letter to Hegius, but to Barbarianus)," and then read to the young Erasmus. However, this is not at all the way Erasmus chooses to emphasize the story: I quote this adage with all the more pleasure because it refreshes and renews my memory, and my affection, for Rodolphus Agricola of Friesland, whom I name as the man in all Germany and Italy most worthy of the highest public honour .... Such full and ungrudging praise of this man has, I confess, a singular charm for me, because I happened while yet a boy to have his disciple Alexander Hegius as my teacher.... Now to turn to the adage, which I remember having learnt from a certain very learned letter of my beloved Rodolphus, at a time when I was a mere child and as yet ignorant of Greek.

"A certain very learned letter of my beloved Rodolphus" gives no hint that the letter in question is addressed neither to Erasmus nor to Hegius, but

50

Lisa Jardine

transmitted by the latter to the former in class. What Erasmus emphasizes here is above all the bond of affection between master and pupil, a bond which certainly suggests personal contact. And, indeed, scholars have expended a good deal of ingenuity on specifying exactly when Erasmus had this personal contact with Agricola. What I shall argue in this section is that there was no personal contact-perhaps one brief meeting-but that the story of the affectivebond is crucial for Erasmus's version of emerging humane studies. It is interesting to compare the Adages digression with a much earlier letter to Cornelius Gerard, written around 14-89-90, after Erasmus had entered the monastery at Steyn: 56 I am most surprised that you describe [Girolamo Balbi] as the only writer who follows the tracks of antiquity; for, not to mention yourself, it seems to me that I see countless well-schooled writers of the present day who approach quite closely the ancient ideal of eloquence. I think immediately of Rodolphus Agricola, the former teacher of my own teacher Alexander. He was a man not only exceptionally highly educated in all the liberal arts, but extremely proficient in oratory and poetic theory, and moreover as well acquainted with Greek as with Latin. To him may be added Alexander himself, a worthy pupil of so great a master; so elegantly did he reproduce the style of the ancients that one might easily mistake the authorship of a poem by him if the book's title page were missing; and he, too, is not quite devoid of Greek. 57

Here the intimacy of the Adages reminiscence is entirely absent, the link between Agricola and Hegius conventional and formal: "the former teacher of my own teacher"; "a worthy pupil of so great a master." And the link itself is naturally made by Erasmus around Hegius's ability as a poet, and a poet on the written page: "one might easily mistake the authorship of a poem by him if the book's title page were missing." At this stage in his life, I suggest, Erasmus's version of a humanistic chain of influence beginning with Agricola and passing via Hegius to himself is a limited one, centering on the imitative technique ofneo-Latin poetry, which we know Agricola had published at this date, which Hegius fostered at Deventer school, and in which both the young Erasmus and Cornelius Gerard participated-a production that nevertheless depended on the circulation of written texts from Agricola to Hegius and his pupils, and possibly back again for comment. 58 My crucial point here is one of absence. There are no biographical details to support those memories and the affection of Erasmus for his "be-

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

51

loved Agricola" that are not already firmly rooted in text. Nothing, in fact, shows this more clearlythan that crucial adage: "Quid cani in balneo?" For the story about the Agricola letter containing the "what has a dog to do with a bath?" tag is disturbingly closely related to the printing history of Agricola's works (disturbingly, that is, if what one wants to claim is intimacy amongst these three landmark figures in humane learning). The letter from Agricola to Barbarianus about the school at Antwerp, which Hegius read out in assembly at Deventer, was already printed in 1483, in the incunabulum of pseudo-Plato's Axiochus." So Erasmus is drawing the reader of the Adages's attention to a letter that was read to him but addressed neither to him nor to the teacher who read it to him, which is available to the reader himself in the extremely limited printed works of Agricola, soon to be made conveniently available in Peter Gilles's edition of Agricola opuscula:" That Erasmus succeeded in convincing successivegenerations of readers that he had genuinely had some inspirational contact with Agricola is beyond doubt. By 1539 (the year of publication of Alardus's definitive edition of Agricola's works), Melanchthon had taken up the "great heritage of Agricola" theme; and by 1557,in his "Oratio de Erasmo Roterodamo," he had embellished the reference by Erasmus to a brief encounter at Deventer school, so that Agricola singled out the young Erasmus as a boy with a glorious future." Hyma, the author of the classic The Youth ofErasmus, provides a perfect example of the intellectual investment generations of scholars have given to this incident: A halo of almost supernatural learning seemed to surround those favored beings [early humanists] who told with rapture how they had actually heard the voice of the great Ficino or of the famous Pico. When ambitious boys of twelve or thirteen saw such a scholar, freshly arrived from the land of intellectual giants, they were nearly struck dumb with awe. This happened one day to Erasmus when he beheld the beaming features of Rudolph Agricola, ''who was one of the first to bring a breath of the new learning from Italy." 62

As astute a reader as the great Erasmus scholar P. S. Allen, however, is more reticent, but equally revealing: As to the meeting with Agricola certainty is not to be attained. Erasmus' estimate of his age quoted above cannot be correct, ifl4-66 is rightly taken for his birth-year; for Agricola did not return from Italy until 14-79.But between 14-80and 14-84Agricola probably passed through Deventer many times on his way to and from Groningen. He mentions a visit in Oct. 14-80;and in April 14-84he was staying

52

Lisa Jardine

there, perhaps with Hegius in the house of the printer, Richard Paffraet. From the close connexion which existed in Erasmus' mind between Hegius and Agricola, whom he frequently mentions together, there is some ground for supposing that it was on this occasion that he saw the great scholar, whom he afterwards regarded as the teacher of his own master."

"From the close connexion which existed in Erasmus' mind between Hegius and Agricola" it appears that we can only infer that Erasmus wished to establish(canonically) that there had been some crucial meeting with "the great scholar, whom he afterwards regarded as the teacher of his own master" -some laying on of hands which made him the direct heir to the tradition of humane learning which Agricola had been the first (so the story went) to bring from Italy."

"U nfortunately in the De copia we were unable to consult the De inventione dialectica" I am arguing that the accumulating textual reference to Agricola as intellectual and spiritual ancestor to Erasmus of Rotterdam is part of a purposive narrative, emanating from Erasmus himself. In the story so far the so-called central Agricola text, the De inventione dialectica,has been noticeable by its absence (Fig. 2.3). In the systematic search for publishable material (essentially, as we have seen, a publishing search by printers and editors) it had disappeared entirely from sight." But I think it will be clear by now that Erasmus and his "circle" of correctors and editors were not waiting for a particular Agricola work: they were anxious to publish any Agricola texts compatible with a version of him as the key intermediary in the transmission of Italian humanism to northern Europe-and of Erasmus as heir to that inheritance. In fact, if we scrutinize the surviving traces of the De intentione dialectica in scholarly correspondence and in prefatory letters, it begins to look as if there was a problem associated with that text-a problem of corruption in the text, illegibility, or, at the least, serious difficulty for the "castigator." 66 This is where Alardus Amstelredamus comes into the story. Alardus was a scholar in the Erasmus "circle" who had taught at the school at Alkmaar, who later lived and worked in Louvain, and was, naturally, a corrector for the Martens printing house, and who became the individual most closely associated with the quest for Agricola's lost works." He came

Figure 2.3. Title page of the 1538"Phrissemius" text of Agricola's De inventions dialectica.Source: Rudolph Agricola, De inventionedialectica(Paris, 1538). Courtesy of Princeton University Library.

54

Lisa Jardine

to Louvain from Alkmaar in the second half of 151468 and immediately began to work as a corrector for Martens, which brought him to the attention of Erasmus, who renewed his involvement with Louvain (after an extended period in England) at the same moment." The publication of the De inventione dialectica evidently met with Erasmus's approval: that volume came out with Martens in January, and in June we find Alardus providing a prefatory letter to Erasmus's Enchiridion militis christiani:" So although the discovery of the lost manuscript of Agricola's treatise on dialectic supposedly antedates Alardus's connection with the Martens press and Erasmus, the editorial work is apparently exactly contemporary with it. This suggests that in our attempt to unravel the "transmission" of the cultural heritage of Agricola we should go back to that "discovery" and its consequences. All the detail concerning the pursuit of a manuscript of the De intentione dialectica suitable for printing comes from Alardus's dense commentary to his 1539 two-volume edition of Agricola's surviving Opera.71 Jacobus Faber's volume of Agricola Opuscula,published in 1508, had carried a prefatory letter to "Guillelmus medicus," in which Faber claimed to have in his possession a manuscript of the De inventione dialectica"in six books." 72 The important thing to notice is that there is a specificreason for Faber's preface including such a boast: the Opusculaprinted the Agricola letter known as the "De formando studio," which is indeed an epistolary program for an education in humane letters. As the culmination of his graded program of study, Agricola briefly sketches two techniques for ensuring that the body of knowledge acquired is not sterile, but may be redeployed fruitfully and extended. Both techniques concern the classification of material for easy retrieval: storage under headings or common places to adduce illustratively, and storage under the "loci" of dialectic to facilitate argumentation. On the latter he concludes: And if anyone wishes to pursue this more broadly, and through all the dialectical places, as far as the nature of the thing allows, he will certainly provide himself with a vast wealth of matter both for speaking and for inventing. How, and in what manner this ought to be done is more than can be arrived at in a letter, and I have discussed this matter at length in those three books which I wrote De intentione dialectica."

It is because of this direct allusion by Agricola to one of his own (as yet unpublished) works that Faber feels it necessary to include the prefatory information that he has a copy in his possession. 74 The fact that he (a) does not include the text in the volume and (b) makes an entirely erroneous

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

55

remark about the number of books in his copy, suggests that there were problems with his manuscript. 75 Alardus, dedicatedly assembling Agricola's complete works for publication, went straight to Deventer in pursuit of Faber's copy of the De intentione dialectica.Although he found that the manuscript was (a) of three books, as all previous reports had suggested, and (b) a corrupt copy, he paid Faber twenty ducats for permission to publish the text with Martens in Louvain." It was another seven years, however, before the edited text appeared, with Dorp's name (and not Alardus's) on the title page. 77 The only satisfactory explanation for the story of a wild goose chase and a disappointment, followed by a delay in publication," is that neither Faber, who had chosen not to include the text in his Opuscula,nor Alardus was equipped to put the manuscript they had into publishable form. The most likely reason for this is the state of the manuscript-it was a transcription by several hands and Agricola's own bad handwriting was notorious." Another is that a good deal of the text was technical and conceptually innovative. Dorp, in contrast to Faber and Alardus, was both a professional corrector 80 and a professional theologian and logician by training. 81 It was another thirteen years before a supposedly substantially revised text became available" and nearly twenty-five years before Alardus published his definitive commented edition." There is, moreover, really no plausible explanation for the long delay.Alardus located Agricola's missing papers in 1516in the possession of the prominent banker Pompeius Occo, nephew of the doctor and distinguished poet Adolphus Occo, the close

friend to whom Agricola had bequeathed them at his death." In the LucubrationesAlardus claims that the manuscript of the De inventionedialecticahad been lent by Occo to a passing dignitary and was not returned until 1528 (when Alardus publicly announced his intention to publish a commented edition). Like other colorful details concerning the retrieval of the text scattered through the commentary to his edition, this accounts for the dates without being terribly convincing." In the meantime, Alardus took employment with Occo and saw several elaborately illustrated devotional volumes through the press on his behalf.86 One of Alardus's problems was, in the end, finding a publisher. It seems significant that after 1519 Erasmus was apparently on more distant terms with Alardus. When, sometime after 1529, Alardus had finally completed his two-volume Opera)he could not get Erasmus's support for its publication. 87 All of this must surely give us pau,sefor thought when we are consid-

56

Lisa Jardine

ering the "diffusion" and "influence" of the De inventionedialecticaas a key text in the development of humanist dialectic and humanist pedagogy. For, as far as I am aware, the secondary literature that focuses determinedly on Agricola's De inventionedialecticaas the significant bridging work between the "old" dialectic and the "new" has no anxieties whatsoever about the integrity and authenticity of the text, never alludes to the commentaries or corrections of the "castiqatores," and barely even mentions the name of Desiderius Erasmus. 88

Coda: Which "German" Sat at the Feet of Guarino? A Tale of Intellectual Legitimation A good deal of this story has hinged on biography and autobiography and who constructs them. It has emerged that there is a "Life" of Erasmus, circulating in the history of the recovery and printing of Agricola's works, that is woven into the prefatory and other letters. I have argued that out of this "Life" a meaning is being constructed for Erasmus in the history of northern humanism. SinceAgricola is a crucial component in this construction of meaning, it follows that intellectual historians who trace the emerging humanities and their distinctive discipline from Petrarch and Valla (say) to the schools and universities of Protestant Europe, via Agricola's De inventione dialectica,cannot afford to ignore the purposive "Vita Erasmi." But the meticulousness with which this story must be told, if traditional intellectual history is to be convinced and is to be persuaded to take on board the story I have been telling, has, I am afraid, obscured one of its salient features. There is a real flair and virtuosity, a kind of exuberance about this "inventing" of an intellectual pedigree for northern humanism on the part of its authors-maybe a kind of nerve which makes the scholar gasp. I would like to close with a couple of examples. Gerardus [Erasmus's father] took himself off to Rome. There he made his living by writing (for at that time there was not yet an art of printing): he had a most elegant hand. He lived in a youthful fashion. Soon he applied himself to worthy study. He was well-versed in fine Greek and Latin. Moreover in knowledge of law he made more than usual progress. For Rome at that time boasted an extraordinary number of learned men. He heard Guarino. He had transcribed all kinds of authors with his own hand. (Erasmus [1524])89 Alexander Hegius of Westphalia, presided over that school of humane learning, a man profoundly skilled in "bonae litterae," and somewhat skilled in Greek litera-

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

57

ture, thanks to the teaching of Rudolph Agricola, whose friend he became, shortly after Agricola's return from Italy, where he had heard Guarino Veronese lecture at Ferrara and several others distinguished for their erudition. Erasmus's talent soon made itself apparent, since he understood immediately whatever he was taught, and retained it perfectly, surpassing all his peers. (Beatus Rhenanus 154-0 ) 90 Sent next to Deventer, we heard Alexander Hegius, follower of Rudolph Agricola and of Guarino Veronese, a most pious man, both eloquent and learned, and a despiser of wordly glory. I was the equal of any of my contemporaries or colleagues in following and remembering lectures. . . . These were, inestimable men, the principles of instruction of our childhood, it was fashioned by these teachers, and in boyhood I was instructed by these sorts of methods. ("Erasmus," in Johann Herold, Philopseudes,sive ProdesErasmoRoterodamov.c. contraDialogumfamosum Anonymi cuiusdam,Declamatio[Basel, 154-2 ] ) 91

I begin by juxtaposing these three biographical fragments, one supposedly by Erasmus himself, at a time when his fame was established, the other two after his death, as his posthumous reputation was being consolidated in the authorized editions of his works. What interests me, of course, is the similarity in phrasing concerning the intellectual formation of Erasmus's two "fathers": his natural father, Gerardus, and his spiritual father, Agricola. (Remember how Erasmus characterized that spiritual relationship in the "Quid cani et balneo?" adage: "So it was not without thought that I plunged into this digression; not to boast of the glory of Germany, but to perform the duty of a grateful pupil, and acquit myselfof the debt lowe to the memory of both these men, because lowe one the loving respect of a son, and to the other the affection of a grandson.") Rudolph Agricola certainly (insofar as there is any certainty in this story) studied with Battista Guarino, son of Guarino Veronese, in Ferrara. There he abandoned legal studies, the original purpose of his educational journey to Pavia and Ferrara, and dedicated his life to the bonaelitterae, becoming one of the first major intellectual links between Italy and northern Europe. That became Agricola's figurative position in northern humanistic hagiography: Rudolph Agricola made this distinction in the first book of his De inventionedialectica,and Ramus follows him in this, to the extent that he came to rival Agricola's achievement in this art especially,whom Ramus himself was wont to rank in logical studies immediately after the ancient school of Socratic logic (in which the practical application of that art is handled, as much as the science), and ahead of all subsequent logicians. And he used to say publicly that thanks to Agricola the true study of genuine fgermana]logic had first been established in Germany [ Germania],

58

Lisa Jardine

and thence, by way of its disciples and emulators had spread throughout the whole world. 92

The germaneness of being German is also crucial here (as Ramus, with his usual nose for the good publicity line, accurately reflects). In fact Agricola was Frisian, and proud of it. It was Erasmus who abandoned his Dutch origins and "became" a German." In the Johann Herold version, it is Hegius who has become the disciple of Guarino. Clearly a Guarino of some sort or another is necessary to the story of trans-alpine transmission." The story of Erasmus's father, Gerardus, however, as told in the Compendium vitae Erasmi, is rather different. When Erasmus's mother was pregnant with him (so Erasmus tells us) his father (an ordained priest, or about to become an ordained priest-Erasmus is deliberately vague) 95 fled to Rome, returning only when her family wrote and informed him falsely that she had died in childbirth. It is during this ignominious flight that Erasmus represents his father as "listening to Guarino" -yet textually, I think, this Guarino reference also "figures" northward transmission from intellectual father to his heir." The second example relates to Agricola himself. In his Life ofPetrarch, describing how Petrarch decided to abandon study of the law and devote himself to "bonae litterae," "Agricola expanded the account given by his source by adding: 'His mind was too noble to be wasted on things of

slight and small importance like those of which the civil law consists for the most part, and he did not take lightly his being tied down to them."?" The Stuttgart manuscript which contains the Life ofPetrarchalso contains a sketch for a biography of Agricola by Johann von Plenningen. In that biography, Agricola's decision to abandon the study of the law and devote himself to the studia bumanitatis is described as follows: In his early years he followed civil law, and did this more as one who was submitting to the wishes of others than because that subject pleased him. For "his mind was too noble to be wasted on things of slight and small importance like those of which the civil law consists for the most part" (if I may borrow his own words), "and he did not take lightly his being tied down to them," especially since he believed that it could scarcely be trusted by anyone. So abandoning the study of law, he applied his mind to polite letters and to those arts which are called humane."

The mantle of Petrarch falls directly onto the shoulders of Agricola: the mantle of Italian humanism onto the shoulders of the "German." Finally, in a prefatory letter to Peter Nannius (a former pupil of his at

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

59

Alkmaar and now the school's rector), in his collection of Agricola's works (the Lucubrationes),Alardus eulogizes the great rhetorician Aphthonius, whose ProgymnasmataAgricola had translated into Latin. His praise of Aphthonius is extravagant: One can hardly express how distinguished a practitioner of the liberal arts Aphthonius the Sophist is, who attracts and entices the reader with his fitting brevity, his clarity, his orderliness, and with other synoptic aids of this kind. Who acts in the interest of the student with no less diligence than conviction, not attempting immediately to appear learned himself, but to make the reader learned. In these Progymnasmata J with what brilliant conciseness, with how admirable a method [ordo],with what simplicity is the whole aim of rhetoric comprehended, as if some clear image were drawn out before us? 99

In the prefatory letter to Goclenius, in the volume of Agricola's works containing the De intentione dialectica,we find Alardus inveighing against those who make Plato's teaching inaccessible and obscure to students, who would more appropriately be attracted and enticed with fitting brevity, clarity, orderliness, and with other attractive features of this kind.'?" And Agricola is the one man above all who is everywhere consistent; on any topic whatsoever a distinguished practitioner of the liberal arts, who acts in the interest of the student with no less judgement than conviction, not attempting immediately to appear learned himself, but to make the reader learned. 101

I do not think it would have bothered Alardus at all that we have found him out transposing compliments from one "distinguished practitioner of the liberal arts" to another-from the antique exemplar, Aphthonius, to the figurehead of northern humanism, Rudolph Agricola. If he had annotated his own prefatory letters as assiduously as he annotated Agricola's, he would probably have drawn attention to the "self-quotation" himself. Cumulatively, every such textual echo, every virtuoso print elision, contributes to the construction of the Erasmian cultural tradition, which we might now wish to call: De inventioneAgricolae.102 The tale this virtuosity tells-this exuberant shuffling of the flash cards to provide self-confirming testimony for northern humanism-is in the end a tale of legitimation. Outside the universities (which cannot, or will not, provide a place for them), in print, Erasmus and his circle compose the history of their own intellectual movement: the intellectual pedigree; the testimonies of excellence; the corroborating evidence for and confirming allusions to the seminal influence and lasting impact of a small

60

Lisa Jardine

band of Dutch educators. Four centuries later, the scholarly community still takes them entirely at their word.

Endnote In 1523, in the polemical Spongia)Erasmus once more referred to the "Quid cani et balneo?" adage and drew attention to his eulogy of Agricola and Hegius: "Did not I praise Rudolph Agricola and Alexander Hegius fulsomely, to whom lowed absolutely nothing?" 103 By then, of course, he himself no longer needed to stand on the shoulders of giants. By then the print story of the preeminence of Erasmus was in any case canonical.

Appendix

I

LETTER FROM JACOBUS FABER TO ERASMUS, 1503 IACOBVS ERASMO SVO VTRIUSQVE

LINGVE PREDOCTO

CANONICO

REGVLARI SALVTEM

(C)ommunis preceptoris viri doctissimi lucubratiunculas, Erasme suauissime, dignissimas quas edam tuo auspicio, politioribus characteribus exprimantur, quantum in me erit, curabo quam diligentissime. Impietatis non iniuria aget me quispiam, immo studiosis adolescentulis inuidere asseueret, quando hanc prouinciam subire suorum videam neminem subterfugientium laborem, si vigilias illas a blattis corrodentibus non vindicarem situ squalentes, tenebris abstrusas; opera certe cedro tingenda Pallados, penitiore ex adyto deprompta Alcide nostro. Non sum nescius quantum preceptori, sub quo meruimus non tempore vno eodemque, debeam; cuius beneficiis quis respondit aliquando? eo plura cui referam accepta, quo mihi deuinctus magis. In quem quam pium te prestiteris, Adagia Graeca a te iampridem traducta docent luculentissime. Non longe enim a principio, in adagio (vt mens fert) Quid canis in balneo, vt de eo memineris, haud tibi mente excidit: Rodolfus, inquam, Agricola, "quem ego virum totius Germaniae publico honore nomino: nominoque hoc libentius quod puellus huius discipulo sum vsus preceptore, Alexandro Westphalo, vt huic (filii) pietatem, illi tanquam nepoti(s) debeam charitatem. Verum ne Rhodolfi nostri gloriam Germanus preco faciam inuidiosam, Hermolai Barbari, quem nemo (vt opinor) negat inter Italos preter sum-

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

6I

mam morum innocentiam et eruditionis arcem tenuisse, epitaphium de eo subscribam: Inuida clauserunt hoc marmore fata Rodolfum Agricola, Phrisii spemque decusque soli: Scilicet hoc viuo meruit Germania laudis Quicquid habet Latium, Graecia quicquid habet."

Quanti autem is ipse nostrum fecerit, hinc profecto clarum; siquidem nostrum sibi persuasit pro eius summo studio rum amore proque eius candore animi (qualem sibi exoptabat) studiorum fuisse acerrimum ct exactorem et stimulum et socium, quocum communicaret gratissimum fuit quicquid cogitando inuenerat, quicquid scribendo effecerat, quicquid legendo didicerat, quicquid vel laude vel acriori dignum iudicio annotaucrat; que in eius aures ipse, vt itidem in suas ille, deposuit. Semper vel ingerebat aliquid vel contabatur vel dubitabat vel disceptabat, nunc negligentiam liberiori reprehensione castigabat, nunc conatum benigniori prouehebat laude, verum et dicere et audire qui et sciuit et voluit. Itaque quocum etatem vna degere hoc nostro maluerit habuit neminem; id quod per res vtriusque non licuisse tulit egerrime. Que nostrum commendant quis dixerit facile?qui et dignitate et auctoritate pre ceteris valens infimos quosque facilitate incredibili aequauit. Vigilantissimus negociosam vitam et quietae et tranquillae pretulit semper; mirum in modum sollicitus qua ratione iuuentuti studiosae consulendum optime; cui bene instituendae vt se natum duxerit vita acta docet. Solida queque summo sudore amplexus, quantopere luctandum non preuidit. De hac enim bene mereretur, hanc sibi conciliaret, laborem omnem duxit minimi. Hunc quesiuit prodesse desiderans, non caeco Midae stolidi captus auro. Quos pauperes esse perspicuum erat, haud ab aliis idipsum pretendentibus mercede defraudari eque passus, celum sibi proponens admisit facillime; quos bonis artibus, aeque atque diuites quosque, instituit diligentissime. Vnde ad vitam bene modesteque transigendam quid ei in viuis defuit? Deo incumbens non est spe frustratus, cui is ipse respondit abunde virtute consumatus. Cuius illam [Curam illius?] admouit accuratissime, ad quam colendam inuitauit maiorem in modum, hanc predicans, hanc extollens, a viciis dehortatus, vicia detestans. Quibus quam infestum se prestiterit, pleraque eius carmina grauissima, que quotannis vt moris est dedit, luce clarius ostendunt; que consilio aliis sudoribus eius longe et melioribus premittenda censui. Cognoscetur enim hinc quo vultu, quo animo suscipientur. Que vbi placuisse videro, que nulli non, et qui litteris

62

Lisa Jardine

affectus et qui doctus, ob tum singularem doctrinam tum admonitiones modestas futura sunt gratissima, facilius (non vt modo) calchographi importunitate improba victus librarie officine alia imprimenda dabo. Hec quidem: De vera Paschae inueniendi ratione, que Bibliae innititur: quam ex Isaac Argyro Greco excepisse apparet, adiunctis plaerisque de incarnationis mysterio. De scientia et eo quod scitur, contra Academicos. De philosophia. Erotemata interloquutoribus insertis de triplici anima, vegetabili, sensibili, rationali. De arte et inertia. De rhetorica. De moribus. De sensu et sensili. Et alia non nulla. Quocirca mentis bona rebus et fluxis et caducis quo prestantiora sunt, laus eius eo magis solidis ex bonis surgat semper; qui docendo de suis meritus est quam optime, quos non ambagibus, non inuolucris, non inanibus argutiunculis nihil ad rem facientibus suspendebat, qui lumen soli ingerere non didicit, qui luce clariora crassis velaminibus non obtexit, intellectum inutilibus adductis interimens. Sed contra in medium obscura queque misit clarissime; adeo vt nemo non, cui haud gelidus circum precordia sanguis, intelligat quam facillime. Dignus igitur cuius apud posteriores, que liquit monimenta extent semper. Haec hactenus. Ceterum nescio quid sibi velit, Erasme dulcissime, quo minus Libanii orationem Graecam, vbi Latinam feceris, quam expecto, ad me (vt conuenimus) dederis. Preuideo consilium tuum; quos in manibus habes De illustribus metaphoris, De allegoriis ecclesiasticis, De auctorum allusionibus, De scite et dictis et responsis libros, Libanio mea addere instituisti. Quo vno me consolor, vt moram longiusculam haud feram animo iniquo. Accipe nunc preceptoris nostri carmina grauissima, ad que accedent, vbi et tibi et candidis lectoribus grata viderim, eius insuper de diuersis Erotemata colloquutoribus insertis, Platoni se in hoc accommodans, qui erat ei quam familiarissimus. Dabo tandem operam, quicquid de Rodolfi Agricolae operibus ad manus hie veniet, preter ea que superioribus annis edita apud bibliopolas exponuntur, te adeant. Non absurdum rursus putaui subiicere epicedion incultum, quod ei vita defuncto inueni, in quo prestinguntur quedam quibus ille noster miratur, qui tuis commendatus sit semper. 104

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

63

[Jacob to his Friend Erasmus, an accomplished scholar in Latin and Greek and a Canon regular, Greetings The writings of that excellent scholar, your teacher and mine, dearest Erasmus, are well worth my editing with your blessing; and I shall take every possible care to see that as far as in me lies they are reproduced in elegant characters. I could justifiably be held guilty of disloyalty, indeed of malice, towards studious youth, if, observing as I do that none of his close friends is undertaking this charge and that they shrink from the toil it involves, I were to fail to rescue those products of his pen, filthy with dust and buried in darkness, from the devouring worm; for they are works that deserve to be preserved by the cedar oil of Pallas Athene, drawn by our Hercules from an inner shrine. I recognize how much I am indebted to the teacher under whom you and I served, though at different times. Who has ever responded worthily to all he did for us? I have even more for which to be grateful, inasmuch as he was closer to me personally. How loyal you yourself have been to him the Greek adages which you translated some time ago show very clearly; for, near the beginning of that work, in the adage called, as I remember, "Quid canis in balneo," you did not forget to mention him in these terms: Rodolphus Agricola, "whom I name to the general honor of the entire German nation; and name all the more gladly because as a boy I had for my own teacher his pupil Alexander [Hegius] of Westphalia, so that I owe to the latter filialduty, to the former as it were a grandson's affection. But, in case I as a German should arouse resentment by singing the praises of my fellow-countryman Rodolphus, I shall add the epitaph composed by Ermolao Barbaro, whom everyone, I think, must agree to have occupied the preeminent place among Italians, both for personal honour and for scholarship: In this cold tomb hath envious fate sealed up The hope and glory of the Frisian name; Whate'er of praise to Rome or Greece belong, He, living, won for Germany that same."

How highly Agricola himself respected Hegius is made clear by the following: he was convinced that by virtue of his intense enthusiasm for study and his sincere goodwill, such as he himself longed to possess, our master was most effective in evoking, prompting, and assisting others' studies. With him he loved to share whatever he had discovered by reflection, or created in writing, or learned by reading, or marked as deserving either praise or censure. And these things he poured into our master's ears,

64

Lisa Jardine

just as Hegius did into his. He always made some relevant point, or expressed reluctance or hesitation, or debated the matter, sometimes chiding carelessnesswith an outspoken rebuke and sometimes encouraging an attempt with kindly words of praise, but always both able and willing to speak and to listen. And therefore there was nobody with whom he would have preferred to spend his life than with our master; and he was very sorry that their circumstances made it impossible. Who could easily chronicle all our master's good qualities? Though he surpassed others in rank and authority, he showed exceptional affability in condescending to men of low estate. He was extremely energetic, and always preferred a busy life to a quiet and restful one; he was extraordinarily anxious to find the best way of serving the interests of studious youth, and his life-story shows that he regarded it as his destined task to educate youth well. He took infinite pains to achieve what would be most permanent without calculating what struggles it would cost him; for in order to deserve well of youth and win its affection, he thought no kind of fatigue was of any consequence, and when he sought hard work, he did so not under the spell of foolish Midas's hidden gold, but out of a longing to do good. In fairness he would not allow those who were obviously poor to be disappointed by others who claimed the same benefits in return for fees, and was very ready to admit them, regarding Heaven as his recompense; and he taught the liberal arts to them with the same careful attention as to the rich. Thus while he was alive he did all that one could do to live a virtuous and unselfish life; he relied on God, and did not hope in vain; indeed he lived up to his own hopes in generous measure, for he was filled with goodness and made perfect in goodness. He was most assiduous in encouraging the pursuit of virtue, to the exercise of which he earnestly called his pupils; he preached and praised virtue, exhorting them to abandon vice, which he hated. The extent of his hostility to it is shown with perfect clarity in the many deeply serious poems he published each year, as was his custom; these I have deliberately decided to issue in advance of his other productions, even though the latter are far more accomplished, for I shall thereby come to know what reception they can expect. When I perceive that they have won approval (and they are sure to receive a warm welcome from every educated person with any taste for literature, both for their profound learning and for their restrained moral exhortations), I shall then be more ready, without suffering the printer's importunate insistence as I do now, to send his other works to the press to be printed. They consist of the following:

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

65

An enquiry in the form of a dialogue on the true method of determining the date of Easter, which depends upon the Bible; this he evidently derived from the Greek, Isaac Argyros; together with a lengthy treatment of the mystery of the incarnation. On knowledge and [that which can be] known; against the philosophers of the academic school On philosophy On the tripartite soul: vegetable, sensory, and rational On ability and its absence On rhetoric On morals On sensation and its object; also severalother writings And thus, as treasures of the mind are finer than transitory and ephemeral possessions, so may his glory ever grow greater from his enduring achievements; for by his teaching he deserved excellently well of his pupils, whom he never teased with circumlocutions, obscurities, or vain and petty cleverness of no relevance to the subject; who never learned the art of adding light to the sun; who did not wrap up in thick veils matters that were clearer than daylight, blunting the understanding with useless additions. On the contrary, he set whatever was obscure in the clearest possible light, in such a way that anyone save he whose "blood within his 2.4-84-]could understand it with the greatbreast did coldly run" [Geot;gics est ease. For this reason he deserves to enjoy eternal remembrance among posterity through the literary memorials he has left. Enough on this subject. For the rest, dearest Erasmus, I fail to comprehend why you have not given me, as we agreed, the Greek oration of Libanius when you have done it into Latin; I am waiting for it. I can glimpse your intention; you have decided to add to my Libanius the books you are now engaged upon: on famous metaphors, on ecclesiasticalallegories, on allusions in classicalauthors, and on witty sayings and replies. This is the one thought I console myself with that I may bear patiently the rather long delay. So now accept our teacher's most important poems, to which will also be added, when I see that it would please you and my other kindly readers, his enquiries into a variety of topics, composed in dialogue form; in this respect he follows the example of Plato, who was most intimately known to him. Finally I shall see to it that any of Rodolphus Agricola's works that come to hand here are sent to you, except those that have been published in previous years and are now in the booksellers' shops. Also I thought it not inappropriate to add a rough-and-ready dirge

66

Lisa Jardine

that I composed in honor of our departed friend, which touches on certain admirable qualities in him, which may ever serve to commend him to your friends. 105]

ERASMUS, ADAGES (1508), "WHAT HAS A DOG TO DO WITH A BATH?"

What has a dog to do with a bath? I quote this adage with all the more pleasure because it refreshes and renews my memory, and my affection, for Rodolphus Agricola of Friesland, whom I name as the man in all Germany and Italy most worthy of the highest public honor: in Germany, because she gave him birth, in Italy, because she made him a great scholar. No one was ever born this side of the Alps more completely endowed with all literary gifts; let this be said without prejudice. There was no branch of fine learning in which that great man could not vie with the most eminent masters. Among the Greeks he was the best Greek of them all, among the Latins the best Latin. As a poet you would have said he was a second Virgil; as a writer of prose he had the charm of a Poliziano, but more dignity. His style, even extempore, had such purity, such naturalness, you would maintain that it was not a Frisian who spoke, but a native of ancient Rome herself. Such perfect eloquence was paired with the same degree of learning. He had delved into all the mysteries of philosophy. There was no part of music in which he was not accurately versed. At the very end of his life he had bent his whole mind on the study of Hebrew and the Holy Scripture. In the midst of these efforts he was snatched from this world by the envy of the Fates, not yet forty years old, as I am told. There are a few literary remains of his work, some letters, poems of various kinds; the Axiochus of Plato translated into Latin, and a version of Isocrates' To Demonicus.Then there are a couple of lectures given in public session in the University of Ferrara, for it was there he both learnt and gave open lectures. There are lying hidden in some people's possession his treatises on dialectic.'?' He had also translated some of Lucian's dialogues. But since he himself cared little for glory~ and most mortals are, to say the least of it, careless in looking after the work of others, none of these have yet seen the light. But the works which are extant, even if not published by himself, give plain proof of something divine about the man. Let it not be thought that I as a German am blinded by patriotic feeling; to avoid this I will transcribe the epitaph written for him by Ermolao Barbaro for Venice. It is superb, and one might find it difficult to decide

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

67

whether it was more worthy of the man who wrote it or the man it was written about. Here it is: Under this stone, the jealous Fates decreed The Frisian hope, his country's light, should come, Rudolph Agricola; in life, indeed, He brought such praise to Germany his home As ever Greece could have, or ever Rome.

What ampler or more magnificent tribute could be paid to our dear Rodolphus than this splendid testimony, so complete, and offered not to a living man but to one already dead-so there is no question of its proceeding from affection rather than from judgment? and to a German, so there is no possibility that love for a country they both shared should diminish the weight of the testimony? And it came from that man who had brought glory not only to his native Italy, but to this whole age of ours; whose authority is such among all learned men that it would be most impertinent to disagree with him; whose work in restoring literature is so outstandingly valuable that anyone would have to be utterly impervious to culture, or at least utterly ungrateful, who did not hold the memory of Ermolao as sacrosanct. Such full and ungrudging praise of this man has, I confess, a singular charm for me, because I happened while yet a boy to have his disciple Alexander Hegius as my teacher. He was headmaster of the once famous school of the town of Deventer, where I learned the rudiments of both languages when I was almost a child. To put it in a few words, he was a man just like his master: as upright in his life as he was serious in his teaching. Momus himself could have found no fault with him except one, that he cared less for fame than he need have done, and took no heed of posterity. If he wrote anything, he wrote as if he were playing a game rather than doing something serious. And yet these writings, so written, are of the sort which the learned world votes worthy of immortality. So it was not without thought that I plunged into this digression; not to boast of the glory of Germany, but to perform the duty of a grateful pupil, and acquit myself of the debt lowe to the memory of both these men, because lowe one the loving respect of a son, and to the other the affection of a grandson. Now to turn to the adage, which I remember having learnt from a certain very learned letter of my beloved Rodolphus, at a time when I was a mere child and as yet ignorant of Greek. In this letter he is trying to per-

68

Lisa Jardine

suade the town council of Antwerp, with conviction and eloquence, that they should appoint as master of their school someone proficient in liberal studies, and not (as they usually do) entrust this office to an inarticulate theologian or naturalist, the sort of man who is sure he has something to say about everything but has no notion of what it is to speak. "What good would he be in a school? As much good, to use the Greek repartee, as a dog in a bath." Lucian Against an Ignoramus: "And each one of the onlookers immediately voices that very handy proverb: what do a dog and a bath have in common?" Again in the Parasite: "But to my way of thinking, a philosopher at a drinking-party is just like a dog in a bath." So this is to be applied to those who are totally useless for certain purposes, just as there is no use for dogs in a bath. 107

Appendix

2

EARLY PRINTING

HISTORY OF AGRICOLA'S

WORKS

The following account is based on a search ofL. Hain, Repertorium Bibliographicum) in quo libri omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD) 2 vols. in 4- (Paris, 1826-38), and W. A. Copinger, Supplement to Hain's Repertorium Bibliographicum. or corrections towards a new edition of that work) 3 vols. (Milan, 1950). I have also made use of G. van Thienen, Incunabula in Dutch Libraries: A Census of Fifteenth-Century Printed Books in Dutch Public Collections) 2 vols. ('s-Gravenhage, 1983), with additional information from J. C. T. Oates, A Catalogue of the Fifteenth-Century Printed Books in the University Library Cambridge (Cambridge, 1954-). Finally, as always, I have derived a good deal of guidance by careful reading of P. S. Allen's header notes and footnotes in his edition of Erasmus's letters, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, 12 vols. (Oxford, 1906-58), as well as from his "The Letters of Rudolph Agricola," English Historical

Review21 (1906),

302-17.

The only original work of Agricola's published in his lifetime seems to have been the long Latin poem, "Anna mater" (Alardus II, 297-309), and a small number of individual letters. The "Anna mater" was published by Richard Paffraet: On 7 April 14-84-Richard Paffraet and his wife Stine were honored by

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

69

a visit to their home by the great man Agricola. In his luggage the humanist had a panegyric to St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary. Paffraet hastened to his workshop and returned with Agricola's Anna Mater in ten pages of print. Agricola, in a hurry to continue his journey, had to overlook the printing errors. 108 This volume is recorded in Copinger as item 133,as follows: Agricola (Rodolphus) Anna mater.-Epicedion, epitaphium et epigramma [Daventriae, Rich. Paffroet, 1485.] 4°. Goth .... I off.

It corresponds to Huisman 141 (where it has strayed into a post-1500 bibliography): 109 S.A. (Deventer. R. Paffraet.) 40. al

az a7 ala

•

Rodolphi Agricolae / Anna mater incipit Rodolphi Agricolae / Mauricio comiti spegelbergi epicedion. Epitaphium. / Eiusdem epigram [m]a

The "Epicedion" is printed in Alardus II, 314- 19; the epitaph to the same is printed in Alardus II, 319.Copinger 134is another edition of the "Anna mater," "Carmina in divae Annae laudem" [Swollis, Petro Os de Breda, 1500] (also I off.). Hain 15923gives the following: Vegius (Maphaeus) Vita divi Antonii. F. Ia: Vita diui Antonii a Mapheo Vegio Laudensi viro si quisq[ ue] fuit etate nostra eruditissimo tam vere quam eleganter conscripta unacum suauissimis quibusdam carminibus de Sancte Marie et beate Anne laudibus pulcherrimis .... Impressum Liptzk per Gregorium Werman et per magistrum Ioannem Cubitensem diligenter emendatum. 1492.

I take it this is Huisman 140 (also pre- 1500): 5.1.s.n. In Annam matrcm carmen. 1492. 1+92.

in: Maphcus Vegius: Vita Divi Antonii.'!"

The "de Sancrc Marie" poem here suggests a link with Copinger, item 5753, Iodocus Bcvssclius, RosaceaaugustissimaechristiferaeMariae corona(Ant-

70

Lisa Jardine

werp, Govaert Bac, [1493- ]), which van Thienen lists as "with other tracts" (item 808), and which Oates indexes as containing "Anna mater" (Oates, item 3980 and page 702). In addition to prefatory letters in his own volumes, two Agricola letters, to Rudolphus Langen and Antonius Liber (Vrye) were published around 1477 in a volume edited by Liber, Familiarum epistolarumcompendium (Cologne, J. Koelhoff, c. 1477).111 Two of Agricola's translations from Greek (at least) were also published during his lifetime. His translation of Isocrates' Praeceptaad demonicum appears as item 3328 in Copinger as follows: Isocrates. Praecepta ad Demonicum. Sine nota [14-80.] 4-°.... 8fr. Praecepta Isocratis per eruditissimum virum Rudolphu[ m] agricola[m] e graeco sermone in latinum traducta.

It was apparently reprinted in Heidelberg (Heinrich Knoblochtzer, about 1495) and Nuremberg (Friedrich Creussner, about 1497).112 His translation of pseudo-Plato's Axiochus de contemnendamorte appears as item 4766 in Copinger as follows: Plato Axiochus de contemnenda morte. Daventriae, In platea episcopi [Rich. Paffraet, c. 14-80] 4-°. Goth. . . . 6ff.

In a characteristic printer's move, Paffraet later used this six-folio work to fill out the end of another publication. Copinger 2953 gives the following: Hieronymus s. Epistolae duae ad Athletarn et Heliodorum etc. [Deventer, Rich. Pafraet, ca. 1500] 4-°. Cont. Hieronymus s. Epistolae duae ad Athletarn et Heliodorum-Marcus Tullius Cicero: Epistolarum ad familiares libri tres ultimi-Basilius Magnus s.: De legendis libris gentilium-pseudo-Plato: Axiochus, seu De contemnenda morte.-Quintus Flaccus Horatius: Satirae, seu sermonum liber primus.

Copinger item 4768 is a more interesting volume for my purposes, since it includes, in addition to the Axiocbus, Agricola's translation from French of the letter "de congressu Imperatoris Friderici et Caroli Burgundiorum ducis" (Alardus, Lucubrationes,221-27), and the letter to Barbarianus containing the "canis in balneo" tag, as well as some "carmina": Plato. Dialogus de contemnenda morte qui Axiochus inscribitur, vertit Rodolphus Agricola.-Rod. Agricolae Traductio in epistolam de congressu Imperatoris Fri-

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

71

derici et Karoli Burgundionum ducis etc. [Lovanii, [oh. de Westfalia, c. 1483.] 4°. Goth .... zsff including 1Stand last blank.

Oates's version of the same volume runs: "Traductio in epistolam de congressu Friderici et Karoli. Epistola ad Barbirianum. Carmina. [Louvain, Ide PaderbornJ" (Oates, item 3777 and page 702). Copinger item 4767 is also an edition of the Axiochus, listed as follows: Plato [Moguntiae, P. Friedberg, 149-.] 4°. Goth .... 8FF. Er": (Title) Axiochus Platonis de con \\ temnenda morte. \\ Infracto ut possis animo contemnere morte \\ ad nomen cuius vulgus mane tremuit: Divini Socratis verba haec lege quis moriente \\ Axiochum monuit: illico tutus eris \\ F.lb (Text) Jacobus Canter Phrysius artiu[ m] ingeniaru[ m] p[ro]fessor: \\ Poeta Laureatus ... \\ End. Finit dialogus Platonis de contemnenda \\ morte qui Axiochus inscribitur Feliciter.\\

According to Allen (Opus epistolarumI, 126), Jacobus Canter's preface to this edition can be dated as after 26 March 1496 (death of Hermann Rinck), thus confirming a publishing date in the 1490S (after Agricola's death). Canter corresponded with Erasmus around 1489 (see my discussion of the neo-Latin poetry link between Erasmus as possibly the original stimulus for his interest, above). Hain, item 6692, lists the following, undated and without place of provenance: Eucherivs Episcop. Lugduneus. Epistola ad Valerianum de Philosophia Christiana.

Allen identifies this as the "Epistola Valerii episcopi ad propinquum suum ex Greco in Latinum sermonem per magistrum Rodolphum Agricolam traducta" (J. de Breda [Deventer C. 1485]) (Allen, Opus epistolarumIII, [introduction to letter 676]). In 1517Erasmus printed this work in an edition by Martens of his Cato. In his prefatory letter to Alardus he identifies the letter as being from Eucherius to Valerianus, rather than vice versa, and points out that it was a Latin original and not translated from the Greek, but he used Alardus's text (possibly the edition just described) to prepare his own edition. 113 Finally, in pursuit of the elusive Lucian, Copinger, items 3655, 3656, 3657, gives Lucian editions by de Breda and Paffraet in Deventer, C. 1485 to C. 1497, which would be worth closer inspection. A. F. van Iseghem (Biographie de ThierryMartens dJAlost,premierimprimeurde la Belgique [Alost,

72

Lisa Jardine

1852 ]) refers to a record of a volume RodolphiAgricolaevaria, Martens, 1511, which supposedly contains Agricola translations of two Lucian dialogues, but of which there appears to be no trace apart from this one citation. 114

Notes I. I would like to thank all those members of the Princeton History Department who contributed to my own understanding of "broader historical context," in vigorous and stimulating debate, during my tenure there of a Shelby Cullom Davis Center Fellowship. 2. See, e.g., Robert Darnton, The Great Cat Massacreand Other Episodesin French Cultural History (New York, 1984), 63: "Cultural currents intermingled, moving up as well as down, while passing through different media and connecting groups as far apart as peasants and salon sophisticates. These groups did not inhabit completely separate mental worlds." 3. For a preliminary skirmish with such problems on my part see L. Jardine, "Distinctive Discipline: Rudolph Agricola's Influence on Methodical Thinking in the Humanities," in F. Akkerman and A. J. Vanderjagt, eds., RodolphusAgricola Phrisius1444-1485 (Proceedings of the International Conference at the University of Groningen, 28-30 October 1985) (Leiden, 1988). 4. For the case for the persistence of a more traditionally scholastic view of logic/dialectic, however, see J. M. Fletcher, "Change and Resistance to Change: A Consideration of the Development of English and German Universities During the Sixteenth Century," History of Universities1 (1981), 1-36; J. K. McConica, "Humanism and Aristotle in Tudor Oxford," English Historical Review 94 (1979),

291-3 17. 5. G. C. Huisman, Rudolph Agricola: A Bibliographyof Printed WtJrksand Translations (Groningen, 1985). This work replaces W. J. Ong, Ramus and Talon Inventory (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), and W. Risse, BibliographiaLogica.Verzeichnis

der Druckschriftenzur Logik mit Angabe ihrerFundorte. Band I 1473-1800 (Hildesheim, 1965), for Agricola editions, since Huisman incorporates these authors' works. 6. Inevitably one's view of precisely who were the influential originators of the sustained study of Agricola will be subjective, and in my case probably related directly to my own initiation into the subject. One should probably add N. W. Gilbert, RenaissanceConceptsofMethod (New York, 1960), and W. Risse's Die Logik derNeuzeit, vol. I (Stuttgart, 1964). 7. C. Prantl, Geschichte derLogikimAbendlande (Leipzig, 1870), IV, ch. 21; W. and M. Kneale, The DevelopmentofLogic (Oxford, 1962) (though they cite him as "Agrippa"!); Risse, Die Logik derNeuzeit; Vasoli, La dialettica;Vasoli, "La retorica e la dialettica umanistiche e le origini delle concezioni moderne del 'metodo'," II Verri 35/6 (1970),250-306; L. Jardine, FrancisBacon:Discoveryand theArt ofDiscourse(Cambridge, 1974), ch. I; "The Place of Dialectic Teaching in SixteenthCentury Cambridge," Studiesin the Renaissance21 (1974), 31-62; "Humanism and the Sixteenth-Century Cambridge Arts Course," History of Education 4 (1975),

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

73

16-31; "Lorenzo Valla and the Intellectual Origins of Humanist Dialectic," Journal of the History of Philosophy15 (1977), 143-63; "Humanism and the Teaching of Logic," in N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, and J. Pinborg, eds., The CambridgeHistoryof Later Medieval Philosophy(Cambridge, 1982), section 43, 797-807; "Humanist Logic," in C. B. Schmitt, E. Kessler, and Q. R. D. Skinner, eds., The Cambridge HistoryofRenaissancePhilosophy)section 11.2(Cambridge, 1988). 8. Kneale, Development)300. 9. Agricola biographies tend to be in Dutch. The standard such ones are: H. E. J. M. van der Velden, RodolphusAgricola (RoelofHuusman) eenNederlandsch Humanist der vijftiendeEeuw (Leiden, 19II),and M. A. Nauwelaerts, ROtWlphusAgricola(Kruseman den Haag, 1963).Such detail as there is concerning his life (and much of this paper will be concerned with the sources of such detail) is to be found in the following places: F. G. Adelmann, "Dr. Dietrich von Plieningen zu Schaubeck," Ludwigsbu1lJerGeschichtsbliitter 28 (1976), 9-139; R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship1300-1850 (Oxford, 1976);J. E. Sandys, A History of ClassicalScholarship) 3vols. (Cambridge, 1903-1908), II; R. Radouant, "L'union de I'eloquence et de la philosophie au temps de Ramus," Revue d'Histoirelattraire de la France 31(1924), 161-92; P. S. Allen, "The Letters of Rudolph Agricola," EnglishHistoricalReview 21 (1906), 302- 17;K. Hartfelder, ed., UnedierteBrieft vonRUtWlfAgricola:Ein Beitrag zur GeschichtedesHumanismus, Festschriftder BadischenGymnasien,gewidmet der UniversitiitHeidelbe1lJ(Karlsruhe, 1886);.P.Pfeifer, ed., Commentariiseu index vitae RutWlphiAgricolaePhrisii . . . ) Serapeum 10 (1849), 97-107. On Agricola as a painter see M. Baxandall, "Rudolph Agricola and the Visual Arts," Sonderdruck aus Institution und Kunstwissenschaft:Festschriftfur Hans Swarzenski,409-18. See also L. W. Spitz, The ReligiousRenaissanceof the GermanHumanists (Cambridge, Mass., 1963),20-40; H. de Vocht, Historyof theFoundationand theRise of the Collegium TrilingueLovaniense1517-1550) 4 vols. (Louvain, 1951-55),especially vol. I. 10. For a good example of this type of generalized argument for Agricola's importance, see Spitz, Opecit. The classic, influential account, of course, is W. H. Woodward, Studiesin EducationDuring theAge of theRenaissance1400 - 1600 (Cambridge, 1924),where twenty-odd pages on Agricola (79-103) are dovetailed neatly in between Guarino Veronese, Leon Battista Alberti, and Matteo Palmieri on the one hand, and Erasmus, Bude, Vives, and Melanchthon on the other. Woodward also has a helpful chronological table which confirms this seamless development from Italy to northern Europe via Agricola. II. There is another candidate for "best-known work": a letter which became known as the De[ormandostudio)first published by Jacobus Faber (Deventer, 1508), and frequently reprinted with corresponding works by Erasmus and Melanchthon. 12. T. Heath, "Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic, and Humanism in Three German Universities," Studiesin theRenaissance18(1971),9-64. 13. Faber brought Hegius's works out in two volumes. The first, containing Hegius's poems, is somewhat confusingly entitled: Alexandri Hegii Gymnasi / archaeiampridemDaventriensisdiligentissimiar / tium proftssorisclarissimiphilosophi presbyteri/ poetaeutriusquelinguaedoctiCarmina etgracia et / elegantia;cum ceteris eiusopusculisquae subiciuntur-De scientiaet eoquodscitur contraAcademicos/ De triplicianima vegetabili:sensili:et rationali/ De verapascheinveniendirationeQuam

74-

Lisa Jardine

exIsaac/ A "l1urogrecoexcepisse apparetDe Rbetorica De / arte et inertia / De sensuet sensiliDe moribus/ De philosophia/ De incarnationismisterioErotemata. "This title is misleading as the volume contains only the Carmina and not the ceteraopuscula,"J. IJsewijn, "Alexander Hegius + 1498, I nvectiva in modossignificandi," in I. D. McFarlane, ed., RenaissanceStudies: Six Essays (Edinburgh and London, 1972), 1-20. The second volume did contain the opuscula(Ilsewijn, 3). Faber's prefatory letter explains that the title is deliberate: "1 have deliberately decided to issue [Hegius's poems] in advance of his other productions, even though the latter were far more accomplished, for I shall thereby come to know what reception they can expect. When I perceive that they have won approval . . . 1 shall then be more ready, without suffering the printer's importunate insistence as I do now, to send his other works to the press to be printed," Correspondence ofErasmusletters142 to 297, 1501 to 1514, CollectedWorksofErasmus 2 (Toronto, 1977), 65-69 (letter 174); 68. Here, already, we have an early editor (and printer) constructing a story for their readers, while twentieth-century scholarship discards the "tale" in favor of hardprint "facts." 14. P. S. Allen, Opus EpistolarumDes. Erasmi Roterodami I, 384-88 (letter 174); 385-86. See Appendix I. 15. As we have already seen, prefatory letters customarily "tell" the reader pertinent things. We shall see that a good number of prefatory letters to minor works in what I shall call the Erasmus "circle" advertise connections between that work and forthcoming or promised, doctrinally or intellectually related works. 16. So that we keep the facts straight: Hegius became headmaster of the Deventer school in 1483; he taught the top class. Erasmus was at the Deventer school until sometime in 1484, when he was withdrawn because of an outbreak of plague; he had not reached the top class. In my view the best account by far of Erasmus's life and intellectual influences during the Deventer and Steyn periods is to be found in C. Reedijk, The PoemsofDesideriusErasmuswith Introduction and Notes (Leiden, 1956), ch. III, "His Brethren in Apollo" (42-86). Faber was at the school sometime later (but before Hegius's death in 1498), and stayed on as a master. 17. Sixteenth-century editors seem to have been in the habit of pointing out to fellow editors their failure adequately to acknowledge the author they themselves championed. When Gabriel Harvey published his Ciceronianus in 1577, Thomas Hatcher, who had recently published the collected works of Walter Haddon, wrote to Harvey expressing surprise at the omission of Haddon from Harvey's list of great Cambridge Ciceronian orators (see V. Stern, GabrielHarvey). If the account I give here of how such epistolary exchanges were orchestrated is correct, Hatcher (a friend of Harvey's) may well have expected such a letter to provide a prefatory epistle for a second edition of Harvey's Ciceronianus,which would then serve simultaneously as an additional embellishment for the Harvey work, a connecting thread between Harvey's work and other contemporary English scholars, and a "puff" for Hatcher's own publication. 18. Ibid., 68-69. 19. Apparently Erasmus's Libanius did not in fact reach print until Thierry Martens published it in 1519, although the prefatory letter to Nicholas Ruistre is dated 1503 (Allen I, 390-93 [letter 177]). Allen suggests that this was because Mar-

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

75

tens was not yet in a position to set Greek type in 1503 (Allen I, 390). On printers of Greek manuals see A. T. Grafton and L. Jardine, FromHumanism to the Human-

ities:Education and the LiberalArts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1986), ch. 5. 20. I am coining the term "purposive" for documents in which authors affirm one thing, but use the occasion to make further connections which give the document a further purpose. 21. On the connection between the Paffraet publishing house and the Deventer school see Reedijk, 25; P. C. van der Meersch, Recherchessur la vieet lestravaux desimprimeursneerlandais(Gand, 1856). 22. Huisman, 4. 23. See Appendix I for the full text of the 1508 "Quid cani et balneo" adage. 24. Margaret Mann Phillips, tr., Adages Li.I-Lv.IOO, CollectedWorksofErasmus 31 (Toronto, 1982), 348-5 1, esp. 351. 25. W. A. Copinger, Supplementto Hain's RepertoriumBibliographicum J 3 vols. (Milan, 1950), items 2430, 2431. 26. There were also editions by Johannes de Westfalia, Louvain, 1483; and edited by Iacopus Canter, published by Peter von Friedberg, Mainz, about 1495 (Cop. 4768, 4767). 27. Cop. 3328. 28. For an account of early Agricola publishing history as I have so far been able to piece it together, see Appendix 2. 29. "Quod petis, ut Luciani Mycillum, quem Latinum feci, tibi mittam, dedicemq] ue] tuo ilIum nomini, utrunq[ ue] si non petisses etiam, facturus era[m]: sed uereor ne tam celeriter ilIum tibi mittere queam, nondum recognoui, aut e prima schaeda ilIum repurgaui, adeo ne respexi quidem, postea quam traduxi." Letter to Hegius, reprinted in Alardus, ed., RodolphiAgricolaeLucubrationes(Cologne, 1539; repro Nieuwkoop, 1967), 185. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that these Lucian fragments will turn up in an early edition (particularly since in the Alardus edition the "De non facile credendis delationibus" has a prefatory letter by Agricola). 30. "Accedunt, praeter Latina & Graeca, quae mihi quocunq[ ue] possum modo, tuenda sunt, quanquam & nor n]nihil damni in eis me facere intelligo. Sed accedu[n]t ad haec (ut dico) studia Hebraicarum literarum, quae mihi nouum & plenum molestiae negocium exhibent .... destinaui senectutem meam (si modo me manet senectus) studio sacrarum literarum" (185-86). 31. N auwelaerts, 165. 32. Huisman, item 3. This may be the first printed edition of the important eight-page letter, "De formando studio," but I am not even confident of that. Everything else in the volume I believe to have appeared elsewhere. This is, nevertheless, an important publishing event for our story, because Faber's prefatory letter to the volume contains a crucial reference to a manuscript of the missing De inventionedialectica,and is therefore vital for the story of the retrieval of that work. See Alardus, Lucubrationes,203, and see especially above, pages 52-55. 33. Huisman, 3: RhodolfiAgricole.parae/ nesissiueadmonitioqua / rationestudia

sunt tractanda.et qui auctoressunt / euoluendivna cumepistolaeiusdemadAlexandrum / hegiumgymnasiarchamdauentriensem.etparae-/ nesisIsocratisad demonicumRho-

76

Lisa Jardine

dolfoagrico/ la interprete egrecotraducta/ & H ermolaibarbaripatriarchaeAquileiensis / versusin sepulcrumRodolphiAgricolaegrunningensis / Inuidia [sicHuisman] clauserunthocmarmore[ata Rhodolfum/ Agricolamfrisii spemquedecusquesoli/ Scilicet hocviuo meruit Germania laudis/ Quicquid habet latium graecia quicquidhabet. 34. "Lucubrationes Rodolphi Agricolae, hominis vere diuini, iamdudum expectamus; cuius ego scripta quoties lego, toties pectus illud sacrum ac coeleste mecum adoro atque exosculor" (De copia,fo1.2\ reprinted in P. S. Allen, OpusEpistolarumDes. ErasmiRoterodami, 12 vols. (Oxford, 1906-S8), II, 32 [letter 311]). 3S. Allen, "Letters of Rudolph Agricola," 30S. Beatus Rhenanus worked first as corrector for the printer Stephanus in Paris, then did editorial and prefatory work for Schiirer, moving to Strasburg in Is08- IS09 "to take a more active part in Schiirer's undertakings." From ISII he lived and worked in Basel, with the printing house of Amerbach-Froben (Allen, OpusepistolarumII, 60). See J. D'Amico, Theory and Practicein RenaissanceTextual Criticism:BeatusRhenanus betweenConjecture and History (Los Angeles, 1988), ch. 2, "The Novice Critic." 36. Erasmus and Rhenanus later became close friends; they met in ISIS,when Rhenanus was working for the Froben press and assisted Erasmus in his edition of Seneca's Lucubrationes(D'Amico, BeatusRhenanus, 63-6S). 37. "Salutat te ... Matthias Schurerius, qui plurimum rogat B. Rhenanum vt aliquando manus Rodolpho adhibeat; nam si castigatus esset, non diutius editionem eius moraretur" (Allen, OpusepistolarumII, 121). 38. Allen, OpusepistolarumIII, 19 (letter 606). 39. Allen, OpusepistolarumIII, SS (letter 633). 40. Allen, OpusepistolarumIII, 30 (letter 612). 41. And what was the relationship between that first prefatory announcement by Rhenanus and Schurer's (his employer's) printing aspirations in relation to Erasmus? 42. Huisman 266: OpusculaaliquotErasmo/ Roterodamocastigatore& interprete: quibus/ primae aetati nihilprelegipotest;Neque vtilius neque / elegantius./ & Libelluselegantissimus)qui vulgoCato in- / scribitur,complectens sanctiss.vitaecommunis / praecepta. & Mimi Publiani. / & Septemsapientumcelebriadicta. / & Institutur [sic]Christianihominiscarmine[sic]propueris./ abErasmocompositum./ & Parenesis IsocratisRodolphoAgricola inter / prete, castigatoreMartino Dorpio./ Cum gratia et priuilegio./ A. Maximi. Aug. & Car. Aust. / Prostant louanij·in edibusTheodorici MartiniAlustensis e regioneScholae/ Jurisciuilis.On this volume see Reedijk, 304-6 (introduction to the poem "Christi ani hominis institutum," which was published for the first time in this volume). Note that Dorp, who corrected the Agricola, in fact saw the entire volume through the press, since he too corrected proof for Thierry Martens: "Catonem abs te castigatum mihique creditum castigate impressit, me erratorum vindice. Earn operam magistro Ioanni Neuio [to whom the Cato was dedicated], Lilianorum gymnasiarchae, vti iussisti, dicaui; qui te ob hoc beneficium ita complectitur, vt qum redieris, sis profusissime sensurus" (letter from Dorp to Erasmus [ISI4], Allen, OpusepistolarumII, 10-16 [letter 304]). 43· Huisman, 3. 44. Huisman, 4. On Martens see C. Reedijk, "Erasrne, Thierry Martens et le Julius Exdusus." in J. Coppens, ed., ScriniumErasmianum, 2 vols. (Leiden.ucoo),

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

77

II, 351-78 (particularly as specifying a group centered on the Martens printing house, which included Gilles, Dorp, Goclenius, and Alardus, as well as Erasmus [357]); A. F. van Iseghem, Biographiede ThierryMartens d'Alost,premierimprimeur de la Belgique (Malines, Alost, 1852); P. C. van der Meersch, Recherchessur la vie et les travaux des imprimeursbelgeset Neerlandais (Gand, 1856). "He was a devoted friend and admirer of Erasmus (cf. Ep. 304 and Lond.v.zs, LB. 357); for whom he published nearly sixty volumes" (Allen, Opus epistolarumI, 514). The Gilles Agricola collection was reprinted severaltimes, first by Martens and then by Schiirer. The Cato volume has a very similar publishing history to the Agricola Opuscula:two editions by Martens, followed by one by Schurer (Reedijk, 304-6, 372), further suggesting that Erasmus is "ghosting" the publishing history of Agricola. In 1515P. Quentell published an edition of the Cato collection in Cologne, drawing explicitly to an Agricola connection on its title page: ... ParenesisIsocratisRodolphoAgricola interprete.castigatore/ Martino dorpio./ Epigramma GerardiNouiomagi. in laudem D. Erasmi / RoterodamiTheologieloquentissimi/ Attica se claramiactat Demosthene tellus/ FacunduscoliturTulliusAusonijs/ AgricolamPhrysiuscelebratGermanusErasmum / Mellifiuum laudet. cantet. ad astra[erato/ Cuius ab orefluit mellitigurgitis vnda / Oblectatmentesque Ciceronemagis/ Nam docetingenuosanimassermonepolito/ Et rectesapere.& verbadisertaloqui (Huisman 267; Reedijk, 304-6, 372). This volume also went through a number of editions over the following years. From 1522 Agricola disappears from the title page, and the Isocrates is implicitly attributed to Erasmus (Huisman, 282). This may have contributed to the "slur" of 1523,in which Erasmus was accused of appropriating an Agricola translation of a Euripides playas his own. 45. Allen, OpusepistolarumIII, 98. 46. OpusepistolarumIII, 100 (letter 677); Correspondence 5, 139. 47· Correspondence 5, 139. 48. Allen, Opus epistolarumI, 413- 14. Gilles was another proof corrector in Thierry Martens's publishing house, whom Erasmus had probably met and befriended around 1504, when he was seeing his Panegyricand his Lucubratiunculae through the Martens press. 49. Huisman, 4. The configuration is, again: scholarly proof corrector associated with Erasmus's printed works; printing house associated with Erasmus's current print output; editor/printer of (derivative) Agricola volume. I am suggesting that this must lead us to the conclusion that Erasmus is "ghosting" (at the very least by some kind of patronage) Agricola's emergence in print in the volumes edited by Faber, Gilles, and Dorp (see below). 50. "Petrus Egidius Anuerpianus, Martino Dor- / pio Theologo, Amico iucundissimo. S. D. (Anuerpie pridie Idus decembris.)." Erasmus apparently did not meet Thierry Martens until September 1515(Reedijk, 336-37) in Antwerp, so one assumes his visits to the Martens shop in Louvain postdate 1515.Erasmus's later estrangement from Dorp over Dorp's criticisms of some of his published works need not concern us here. 51. At least, I have not so far been able to track down an incunabulum printing of this oration. 52. Huisman, 124: De rectalatinigrae- / ciquesermonispronuntiationeDes.Era-

78

Lisa Jardine

/ smi RoterodamiDialogus.EivsdemDialoguscui titulus, Cice-/ ronianus,siueDe optimogeneredi / cendi./ Cum alijsnonnullisquorum ni- / hil non estnouum. / [printer's mark] / AN. MDXXVIII / Cumgratia &priuilegio Caesareo. 53. LB I 1013D-IoI4A. Hegius and Goclenius (among other Netherlanders) also figure. So the same roll call that caused such offense for slighting French scholars is extremely careful in its mention of "German" humanists who provide Erasmus with his own immediate pedigree. See Reedijk, 74-83. 54. The more I look at the exchange between Faber and Erasmus, the more convinced I become that they are the product of collaboration and not simply of Erasmus's responding to Faber's published letter. There is a long poem by Cornelius Gerard (Cornelius Aurelius) which survives in manuscript at Deventer, composed between 1494and 1497and dedicated to Jacobus Faber (then a teacher at the Deventer school). In the preface Gerard writes that "lam enim prime decadis libris absolutis mihi prae animi pusillanimitate in tanto opere pene labenti piae exhortationis manum porrexit quidam canonicus regularis, Herasmus nomine, etate floridus, religione compositus et omnium facile nostri evi tam prosa quam metro praestantissimus," as further evidence of a continuing Faber-Erasmus connection (A. Hyma, The Youth of Erasmus [Ann Arbor, 1930],207; see the whole chapter "Poems and orations" [205- 19]). If I am right about the neo-Latin poetry connection in the 1489-90 letter to Cornelius Gerard (see below), that would also support the link (and see Reedijk, ch. 3, passim). 55. The letter, indeed, including the adage, is in Alardus's Lucubrationes, 205-11. Alardus's commentary (212) quotes the Greek from Erasmus's Adages. Hegius had, in fact, been Agricola's pupil only briefly, around 1474,to learn Greek. 56. Allen, OpusepistolarumI, 580-83. 57. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thompson, trs., The Correspondence ofErasmus letters1 to 141J 1484 to 1500 (Toronto, 1974)."Miror autem maiorem in modum cum hunc solum dixeris qui 'veterum vestigia seruet.' Nam, vt te praeteream, innumeros videre mihi videor nostra hac tempestate literatissimos qui ad veterum eloquentiam non parum accedunt. Ecce occurrit imprimis Alexandri mei praeceptoris quondam praeceptor, Rodolphus Agricola, vir cum omnium liberalium artium egregie eruditus, tum oratoriae atque poeticae peritissimus. Denique et Graecam linguam non minus quam Latinam calluit. Accedit huic Alexander ipse, tanti magistri non degener discipulus; qui tanta elegantia veterum exprimit dicendi stylum, vt si desit carmini titulus, in autore facile erraueris: sed ne hic quidem Graecarum literarum omnino ignarus est" (Allen, OpusepistolarumI, 105-6 [letter 23]). 58. On the connecting thread of neo-Latin poetry writing among northern humanists see Reedijk, ch. 3.In another letter to Gerard written around 1489,Erasmus indicates that he is enclosing some of his own poems but that he has sent others to his old teacher Hegius for his approval: "Porro aliud quod ad te darem, ad manum habui nihil; quidquid enim reliquum erat, partim ad Alexandrum Hegium, ludi litterarii magistrum, quondam praeceptorem meum, et Bartholomaeum Coloniensem traduetum est" (Allen, OpusepistolarumI [letter 28], cit. Reedijk, 48). My surmise is supported by the neat fact that the only clear piece of evidence of direct influence of Agricola on Erasmus's own literary production is poetic: in the final ten lines of Erasmus's poem in praise of St. Anne (1489), "Rhythmus iambicus in laudem Annae, auiae Iesu Christi" (Reedijk, poem 22, Ope

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

79

cit., 201-5), Reedijk suggests there is direct influence of Agricola's "Anna mater" (44-45). For evidence that Erasmus knew the Agricola "Anna mater," see the 1501 letter to Anna van Borssele (Allen, OpusepistolarumI, 342 [letter 145]). 59. "Agricola's letter of I. Nov. ,probably as printed in Agricola's translation of Plato's Axiochus, Louvain, John of Westphalia, c. 1483 (Campbell, 1420, Copinger, 4768)." Allen OpusepistolarumI, 581. 60. In just the same way, Jacobus Faber's account of the intimacy between Agricola and Hegius turns out to be patched together (Bolgar's humanistic "bricolage") out of textual fragments pillaged from the letters of the two men themselves. I have traced enough of these to be confident that every phrase in Faber's affecting account can be found somewhere in their surviving correspondence. Compare, e.g., Faber: "Quanti autem is ipse nostrum fecerit, hinc profecto clarum; siquidem nostrum sibi persuasit pro eius summo studiorum amore progue eius candore animi (qualem sibi exoptabat) studiorum fuisse acerrimum et exactorem et stimulum et socium, guocum communicaret gratissimum fuit guicquid cogitando inuenerat, guicguid scribendo effecerat, guicguid legendo didicerat, quicquid vel laude vel acriori dignum iudicio annotauerat; que in eius aures ipse, vt itidem in suas ille, deposuit. Semper vel ingerebat aliguid vel contabatur vel dubitabat vel disceptabat, nunc negligentiam liberiori reprehensione castigabat, nunc conatum benigniori prouehebat laude, verum et dicere et audire gui et sciuit et voluit. Itaque quocum etatem vna degere hoc nostro maluerit habuit neminem; id quod per res vtriusque non licuisse tulit egerrime;" and Agricola to Hegius (148o) (Alardus, Lucubrationes,187-88): "deest enim acerrimus mihi studioru[ml stimulus, exactor eoru[m] & socius, guo cu[m] co[m]munice[m], in cuius aures ego, ut itide[m] in meas ille deponat g[ui]guid cogita[nldo inuenerit, scribe[nldo effecerit, lege[nldo didicerit, & uellaude dignu[m], uel acriori iudicio annotari!, quiq[ue] semp[erl ingerat aliguig, perco[nltetur, dubitet, disceptet, modo neglige[nltiu[m]liberiori reprehe[nlsio[nle co[nlstringet, modo conatu[ml benigniori prouehat laude, utq[ ue] semel syncere omne[ m] inter studia beneuole[ n]tiae fructu[ m] corm]plectar, q[ui] dicere ueru[ml, quiq[uel audire sciat et uelit, eu[m] quu[m] te mihi esse persuadea[m]. pro summo tuo studioru[m] amore, prog[ue] candore animi tui, nihil est omniu[ m 1quod malim, q[uam 1 posse una nos aetate[ m] degere" [echoed passages underlined]. 61. The passage in the Compendiumvitae was "Rodolphus Agricola primus omnium aurulam quandam melioris literaturae nobis inuexit ex Italia; quem mihi puero ferme duodecim annos nato -Dauentriae- videre contigit, nee aliud contigit" (Allen, Opus epistolarumI, 2). For the Melanchthon "Vita Agricolae," see C. G. Bretschneider, ed., Melanthonisoperaquaesupersuntomnia,CorpusreformatorumXI (Halle-Brunswick, 1843), cols. 438-46, where Melanchthon, unlike Erasmus, is quite unselfconscious about the derivative nature of his biographical material: "Nos pauca collegimus, sumpta partim ex ipsius scriptis, partim ab iis qui meminerunt sermones senum, quibus in Academia Heydelbergensi cum Rodolpho familiaritas fuit" (439). For the "Oratio de Erasmi," see Melanthonisopera. . . omnia XII (Halle-Brunswick, 1844), cols. 264-71. He attributes the anecdote to Erasmus himself: "Literas Latinas et Graecas Daventriae didicit in Schola Alexandri Hegii, qui familiaris fuit Rodolpho Agricolae. Ac solitus est ipse Erasmus narrare praesagium Rodolphi Agricolae de adolescentis studio ..Forte ostenderat Hegius hospiti

80

Lisa Jardine

Rodolphi in scholam ingresso, adolescentum scripta. Cumque tyrocinium illud probaret, et gratularetur studiis, praetulit tamen Erasmiacum scriptum caeteris, propter inventionis acumen, orationis puritatem, et figuras, apte ceu flosculos interspersos. Eoque scripto adeo delectatus est, ut ex lineamentis quoque, de indole coniecturam sumere cuperet. Iubet igitur vocari Erasmum, quem cum pauca scis.citatus esset, contemplans figuram capitis, et charopos oculos, hortatur ad discendum, inquiens: Tu eris olim magnus" (266). Melanchthon has a prefatory letter in Alardus, ed., Agricola, Lucubrationes. 62. Hyma, 4-8. 63. Allen, Opus epistolarumI, 581. The evidence for the 14-84-visit is contained in a letter to Antonius Liberus, printed in Alardus, Lucubrationes, 176-77. The letter starts out: "Annam matrem imprimendam dedi." It is therefore interesting to juxtapose Allen's hopeful hypothesis of a meeting between Agricola and Erasmus on this occasion with the following (based presumably on the preface to the Anna mater as published in 14-84- by Richard Praffaert): "On 7 April 14-84- Richard Paffraet and his wife Stine were honoured by a visit to their home by the great man Agricola. In his luggage the humanist had a panegyric to St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary. Paffraet hastened to his workshop and returned with Agricola's Anna Mater in ten pages of print. Agricola, in a hurry to continue his journey, had to overlook the printing errors" (H. D. L. Vervleit, Post-Incunabulaand Their Publishersin the Low Countries:A SelectionBasedon lVOuterNijhoffJs L'art typographique Publishedin Commemorationof the12SthAnniversary ofMartin us N ij·hoffonJanuary 1J 1978 (The Hague, 1978), u8. This does not suggest that any such meeting with a young pupil of Hegius's was leisurely. I am inclined to follow a suggestive remark in Reedijk and think that Erasmus "saw" Agricola on some such occasion, but that Agricola never, as it were, met him. It is, however, possible that Hegius did show Agricola an early Erasmus poem, for instance, the "carmen bucolicum" (Reedijk, 131-39). 64-. "Apud Dauentriam primum posuit in literis tyrocinium, vtriusque lin-

guae rudimentis imbibitis sub Alexandro Hegio Vuestphalo, qui cum Rudolpho Agricola recens ex Italia reuerso amicitiam contraxerat et ab eodem Graece docebatur; nam huius literaturae peritiam ille primus in Germaniam importauit" (Beatus Rhenanus to Hermann of Wied, Allen, Opus epistolarumI, 53 [letter III]). For a continuation of this tradition among scholars of Dutch humanism see E. H. Waterbolk, "Rodolphus Agricola, Desiderius Erasmus en Viglius van Aytta. Een Leuvens triumviraat," in J. Coppens, ed., Scrinium Erasmianum, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1969), I, 129-50. 65. There are a number of references in the secondary literature to copies of the De inventionedialecticacirculating in manuscript, or to individuals possessing copies of the manuscript (e.g., Allen, "Letters of Agricola," 304-), but I can find no evidence to support this, or a single reference to anyone's reading the De inventione dialecticabefore it appears in print. We do know that Agricola's personal friends, the von Pleningen brothers, owned a complete codex (transcribed by themselves), but, as far as we know, they did nothing at all with it. On the important relationship between Agricola and Dietrich von Pleningen (c. 14-53- 1520), for whom the De inventionedialecticawas written and to whom it was dedicated, see F. G. Adelmann, "Dr. Dietrich von Plieningen zu Schaubeck," LudwigsburgerGeschichtsbliit-

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

8I

terzs (1976),9-139. Adelmann writes (personal communication, 1977): "In the Cod. poet. et phil. 4-036 Dietrich and his brother state clearly that the contents are collected to be published later on." 66. I should emphasize how difficult it is, however, to excavate problems out of Erasmus's letters, in particular, because of the care Erasmus himself took in cosmetically tidying up exchanges for publication (as I am stressing throughout this story, Erasmus's self-conscious command of print communication is an important feature of the narrative). See, for instance, the letter to Bude of October 1516, published in the Epistolaeeleqantes,edited by Gilles and published by Martens in 1517 (Allen, Opus epistolarumII, 362-70 [letter 4-80]), where Erasmus writes: "After [the De copia]was published I discovered a certain amount in Rudolphus Agricola." I take this to be an "instruction to the reader" (of both Erasmus and Agricola), rather than a fact (it is indeed the link Erasmus's loyal "castigatores" make in their scholia to the Agricola). See the suggestive article by L.-E. Halkin, "Erasme editeur de sa correspondance: le cas de PAuctarium/' Bibliotbequed/Humanisme et Renaissance4-0 (197 8), 239-4-7. 67. On Alardus see above all A. J. Kolker, Alardus Aemstelredamusen Cornelius Crocus:TweeAmsterdamsePriester-Humanisten,Hun leven, werken en theologischeopvattingen (Nijmegen-Utrecht, 1963). See also B. de Graaf, Alardus Amstelredeamus (1491-1544) His Life and llVrks with a Bibliography(Amsterdam, 1958); and entry in P. G. Bietenholz and T. B. Deutscher, Contemporariesof Erasmus, 3 vols. (Toronto, 1985-87), I, 15-17. Much as in the case of Faber, almost everything we know about Alardus is derived from his relationship either with publishing Agricola's works or with Erasmus, or both. Alardus's own prefaces and title pages regularly introduce both. See, e.g., de Graaf, bib. 22 (page 52): D. Erasmi/ RoterodamiBvcolicon,Le / ctu digniss.cum scholiJs Alardi Aemstelre-/ dami, cuiusstudionuncprimum & re / pertum & aeditum est./ Locuscommunisde uitando pernitiosoaspectu,eo-/ dem pertinens./ Sacerdotumcoelibatus./ Mulier iuxta omneis Inuentionis Dialectic(a)elocosex- / plicataper Alardum Aemstelredamum (Cologne, 1539). 68. Kolker, 21: "Toch uit andere gegevens weten we zeker, dat Alardus reeds in 1514-te Leuvan was. We hebben nl. een hele serie werken, uitgegeven bij Theodoor Martens te Leuven, die door Alardus voorzien zijn van een inleidend gedichtje. Het eerste dateert van November 1514-. Heruit zouden we mogen opmaken, dat Alardus zeker van af die tijd bij deze uitgever, een van de eerste belgische drukkers, minstens af en toe heeft gewerkt, mogelijk als corrector." Fol. 15v of Erasmus's De constructioneoctopartium orationislibellus (Martens, Louvain, November 1514-)has: "Alardi Amstelredami in Erasmianam syntaxin ad puerum Dimetrum" (Kolker, 21). 69. See Allen, Opus epistolarumII, 1 (letter 298), dated 1 August 1514-, Louvain, in which he indicates renewed contact with Dorp-also a corrector at Martens (lines 4-2-4-3). 70. De Graaf, Alardus, 22. In 1518 Alardus contributed a long Latin poem to Erasmus's Ratio seumethodus,celebrating Erasmus's ordoacratio (Kolker, 22, 34-- 35). 71. All the sources for Agricola studies that I cited in note 9 accept Alardus's version of the story entirely at face value. 72. Allen, "Letters of Agricola," says the letter "was presumably in some

82

Lisa Jardine

book edited by Faber; but I have not been able to trace it" (304-). I mention this only because this is the only case in this entire piece of work where, when I had painstakingly reconstructed the provenance and location of a crucial piece of evidence, I did not find that Allen had correctly identified it. 73. "Quod si quis latius ista et per omnes locos dialecticos fuderit, quatenus cuiusque natura capax eorum est, inge[ n]s utiq[ ue] copia & ad dicendum, & ad inueniendum se praebebit. quod quomodo faciendum sit, maius est, quam ut epistola id capiat, & copiose est a me ea de re in tribus libris eis, quos de inuentio[ n]e dialectica scripsi disputatum" (Alardus, Lucubrationes[Cologne, 1539], 199). 74. Alardus's lurid account of the consequences for himself of this announcement are contained in a textual note to this very passage in the "De formando studio" (Alardus, Lucubrationes [Cologne, 1539], 203). Alardus says this copy had belonged to Hegius (it seems eminently plausible that Faber, editing Hegius's works, had found the lost work there). See Alardus, De intentione dialectica,II - 12. 75. It also suggests that he had insufficient understanding of the material it contained. Without going too far into technicalities at this point: it might appear that a work advertised as containing three books "de inventione dialectica" required a matching "twin" in the form of three books "de iudicio." 76. Alardus claims that it was the reference to six books that drew him to Deventer, implying that this was not the only copy of the work he had access to, but I am inclined to doubt this and to think that this was the first surfacing of any trace of the lost work. 77. Huisman, II. RodolphiAgricolePhrisijo Dialeaica/ DorpiusStudiosis/ vt rectis

studiisco[n]sulaturstudiosi,excusasunt vobishaecAgricola[sic]dia / lectica:q[ui]bus nihil ce[n]seovtiliusfuturu[m] iis: q[ui] vera[m]secta[n]turarte[m] diserteeloquenterq{ue]dice{n]/ di: q{uijq{ue] no{n] verbist{a]m[en] inanibus:sed vberi reru{m] copiastudeant summa culm] admirationep[er] / suadere:atq[ue] de re qualibet ex p(ro)babilibusapposite:dece[n]terq[ue]ratiocinari:quod noster/ ille munus essedialecticu[m]testatur: hic itaq[ue]garrula sophistar(um)delirame[n]tine expectetis:/ veru[m] ea expectate:quae a multis- sci[entijarum limitesco[n]funde[n]tibus:rhetoric[a]etributa: p(ro)pria/ t[ame]n sunt dialectic[a]e:quaeq[ue]in AristotelisCiceronisq[ue]librisdesidera[n]tur: q[ui]buscertehieIi/ bernihiloestinferior:siueelegantiam filumq[ue] dictionisspectemus:siue doctrineprae-/ ceptorumq[ue] traditionum. Dorp had already been the addressee of the prefatory letter to Gilles's 1511volume of Agricola Opuscula. 78. Alardus (and subsequent re-tellers of the story like Allen) embellishes his account with tales of dangerous journeys, failed rendezvous, Faber's deception and reluctance to show him the manuscript, and subsequent headaches trying to decipher and transcribe the text. See Allen, "Letters of Rudolph Agricola," 304-5. 79. For evidence of the unsatisfactory state of this manuscript see Matthaeus Phrissemius's graphic description in his commentary on De inventumedialecticaII, 16 (Cologne, 1528ed., 282-83); also Alardus, Lucubrationes,sig. *4 r -v • On the handwriting see Adelmann, "Dietrich von Plieningen." Adelmann writes (personal communication, 1977): "When Alardus Amstelredamus finally published his Cologne edition in 1539as 'ad autographi fidem,' according to Alardus himself rumours were running around in Cologne that he did not possess Agricola's own signed

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

83

manuscript. Since Dietrich copied it in 1479 because Agricola's manuscript was illegible,I wonder if Alardus really had Agricola's own manuscript." See Allen, "Letters of Agricola," 312, Ep. 18 , to Adolphus Occo: ''The Dialecticais just finished and is being copied by Theodoric of Plenningen." 80. It is striking how many works from the Martens press around this date are corrected and/or prefaced by Dorp. See van Iseghem, Biographiede Thierry Martens. 81. On Dorp see Allen, OpusepistolarumII, II. On his technical competence as a logician see, e.g., R. Guerlac's treatment of the More-Dorp correspondence in her edition of Juan Luis Vives's In Pseudodiaiecticos (Leiden, 1979). 82. Huisman, item 16. Matthaeus Phrissemius's corrected version of the text alone (based on the 1515printed version, which was full of typographical errors, curious choices of punctuation, and obvious errors of transcription) appeared in Cologne in 1520 (Huisman, item 12) and his commented edition in 1523 (Huisman, item 14). The supposedly further revised text is substituted in Phrissemius's commented edition in 1528, but this is not signaled on the title page until 1535.Huisman, item 27: Rodolphi/ AgricolaePhrisiideinven-/ tionedialecticalibri tres,cu[m]scholijs Iohan/ nisMatthaei Pbrissemi]:& matyinalibus/ annotationibusnuncauctispassimac reco/gnitis, sublatisetiam multis erroribus,qui / cumRodolphoipso,tum etiam in scho/ l~s baaenus animaduersinon fuere (Cologne, 1535). In 1529 (a year after the better text of the De intentione dialecticahad been retrieved by Alardus and apparently worked through for publication by Alardus and Phrissemius together), Phrissemius offered to help get it published (Allen, "Letters of Agricola" and Alardus, Lucubrationes,sig. + 2 V). 83. On the history of the retrieval see Allen, "Letters of Agricola"; Jardine, "Distinctive Discipline." 84. "Pompeius . . . quicquid habuit Rodolphi Agricolae ab auunculo suo Adolpho Occone Sigismundi Archiducis Austriae medico celebratissimo, non tam legitimo Rodolphi Agric[olae] haerede, qua [m] assiduo eiusde[m] studii collega (neq[ue] enim est sanctius sanguinis uinculo co[n]iungo qu[am] studiis sacrisq[ue] iisde[m] initiari) relictu[m]" (Alardus, Lucubrationes,sig. + IV), also Protucius's elegy to Agricola, sig. *3r • 85. We saw in the case of the similarly vivid and compelling account of the pursuit of Faber's copy that Alardus's version of events is at the very least highly colored. 86. On Alardus's extended publishing relationship with Pompeius Occo, of which the publication of the Agricola Operaforms only a part, see Kolker, Alardus, and F. J. Dubiez, Op de Grensvan Humanisme en Hervorming:deBetekenisvan de BoekdrukkunstteAmsterdam in eenBewogenTijd 1506- 1578('s-Gravenhage, 1962). 87. Allen, "Letters of Rudolph Agricola," 308-9. In the end the Operacame out after Erasmus's death. 88. Let alone "christian humanism," which will surely now have to enter the story. I note here that while many of Erasmus's works went on to the index, Agricola's De intentionedialectica(in spite of its strenuously Erasmian scholia) not only did not, but was specified as an acceptable pedagogic text in dialectic, at least in Louvain and Paris (whose index lists I have looked at).

84

Lisa Jardine

89. "Gerardus [pater] Romam se contulit. Illic scribendo, nam tum nondum erat ars typographorum, rem affatim parauit. Erat autem manu felicissima. Et vixit iuueniliter. Mox applicauit animum ad honesta studia. Graece et Latine pulchre calluit. Quin et in iuris peritia non vulgariter profecerat. Nam Roma tunc doctis viris mire floruit. Audiuit Guarinum. Omnes auctores sua manu descripserat" (Compendium vitaeErasmi, Allen, Opus epistolarumI, 47-48). On the authenticity of this biographical sketch see Allen, Opus epistolarumI, appendix I, 575-78. 90. "Praeerat illic Iudo Iiterario tum Alexander Hegius Vestphalus, homo bonarum literarum minime expers et Graecarum nonnihil peritus, Rudolpho Agricola communicante; cuius amicitia familiariter vtebatur nuper ex Italia reuersi, vbi Guarinum Veronensem Ferrariae profitentem et alios aliquot eruditione celebres audiuerat. Ingenium Erasmi mox eluxit, quum statim quae docebatur perciperet et fideliter retineret, aequales suos omnes superans" (Beatus Rhenanus to Charles V, prefatory letter to Erasmi omnia opera[1540]; Allen, Opus epistolarumI, 57). 91. "Deinde Daventriam deductus,' Alexandrum Hegium, Rodolphi Agricolae, et Guarini Veronensis Discipulum, Virum sanctum, facundum aeque ac eruditum, gloriae humanae contemptorem audiuimus, nullo coaetaneorum, aut soldalium [sic] inferior in percipiendis aut retinendis praelectis .... Haec fuerunt Viri optimi, infantiae nostrae institutiones, his ficta est Praeceptoribus, huiusmodi Puellus sum imbutus rationibus" ("Pages 'Autobiographiques' de Philopseudes, 139-152" [LB. VIII.636F-640E.], in M. Mann Phillips, "Vne vie d'Erasme," Bibliothique d'Humanisme et Renaissance34 (1972), 229-37, esp. 233). 92. Talon/Ramus, 1569."Hanc differentiam Rodolphus Agricola docuit I. lib. de Inventione, quam P. Ramus sequutus est, sic ut aemulatus in hac arte in primis industriam illius viri, quem in studio logico, post antiquam illam Socraticorum Logicorum scholam (in qua non minus usus artis, quam scientia tractabatur) omnibus postea natis Logicis anteponere solitus est, dicereque palam ab uno Agricola verum germanae Logicae studium in Germania primum, tum per ejus sectatores et aemulos, toto terrarum orbe excitatum esse." Petrus Ramus, DialecticaA. Talaei praelectionibusillustrata (Basel, 1569), 95; cit. N. Bruyere, Methode et Dialectique dans [,Oeuvrede La Ramee (Paris, 1984), 305-306. As Bruyere points out, this edition of Talon's commentary on Ramus's Dialectica, revised well after Talon's death by Ramus himself during his stay at Basel, undoubtedly reproduces Ramus's own views on his works and their intellectual origins. See also J.W. Ong, Ramus and TalonInventory (Cambridge, Mass., 1958),190-91. . 93. See J. D. Tracy, "Erasmus Becomes a German," RenaissanceQuarterly 21 (1968), 281-88; C. Reedijk, "What Is Typically Dutch in Erasmus," Delta (1969), 73-82 [not seen]. 94. The figure of humane learning "crossing the Alps" is a humanist trope. It is worth noting that one of Beatus Rhenanus's early editing tasks had been to see through the Froben press Battista Guarino's De modo et ordine docendiac discendi (1514)- this work is the printed source for all Guariniana (see D'Amico, Beatus Rhenanus, 62). 95. The vagueness has a point to it. Hyma cites the following assessments of Erasmus's birth, which assume that Erasmus's father was in holy orders at the time of his birth: "Et deinde, licet defectum natalum patiatur, ex illicito et, ut timet,

Inventing Rudolph Agricola

85

incesto damnatoque coitu genitus" (Pope Leo X); "Nunc populares tui, aliquot etiam vicini, viri boni, nobilis, te aiunt ex incesto natus concubitu, sordibus parentibus, altero sacrificulo, altera prostituta" (J.C. Scaliger, Epistola15)(Hyma, Ope cit., 53,57). I do not think it matters for my argument whether the Compendium vitaeErasmi is by Erasmus himself or compiled out of his works and letters-that is, it does not matter for the "life" who transfers the Italian and Guarinian discipleship from Agricola to Gerardus. 96. It is worth pointing out here that Rudolph Agricola was also the illegitimate son of a priest: his father was appointed abbot of the Benedictine House at Selwert on the very day he was born. See P. G. Bietenholz and T. B. Deutscher, Contemporaries ofErasmus,3vols. (Toronto, 1985-87), I, 15. 97. "Rudolph Agricola's Life of Petrarch," in Eugene F. Rice, Ir., ed., TheodorE. Mommsen:Medievaland RenaissanceStudies (Ithaca, 1959),236-61, esp. 249. 98. "Ac primis armis iuris civilis auditor fuit magisque id agebat, ut suorum obsequeretur voluntati quam quod eo delectaretur studio. Fuit namque in homine animus excelsior atque generosior quam ut ad levia illa exiguaque rerum momenta, quibus magna ex parte, ut ipsius verbis utar, ius civile constat, abjici posset neque passus est se ad ipsum alligari, precipue cum putaret vix constanti fide ac inregritate a quoquam posse tractari. Relicto itaque iuris studio ad maiora eluctans, litteris pollicioribus et artibus, quas humanitatis vocant . . . animum applicuit" (ibid). 99. "Non potest dici quam sit insignis artifex Aphthonius Sophista, ut qui lectorem alliciat, inescetq[ue] commoda breuitate. luce. ordine, aliisq[ue] id genus epitomis: quiq[ ue] non minore diligentia, quam fide discentis agit negotium, non id statim captans, ut ipse doctus appareat, sed ut lectorem doctum reddat. In hisce progymnasmatis, quam scito compe[n[dio, quam miro ordine, qua simplicitate rhetorices summam co[m]plexus est, ceu simulacro quodam nobis deliniato?" (Lucubrationes,sig. A2r) [echoed phrases underlined, see next note]. 100. Surely the passage just quoted should also have "illecebrae" in place of "epitomae" ? 101. "... quos allici inescariq[ue] potius oportuit commoda breuitate, luce, ordine, alijsq[ue] id genus illecebris.At unus omnium Agricola uir ubique sui similis, in quauis materia insignis artifex non minori iudicio quam fide discentis .agit negotium, non id statim captans, ut ipse doctus appareat, sed ut lectorem doctum reddat" (Alardus, De inventionedialectica;sig. a3r ) [echoed phrases underlined]. 102. In a stimulating article, A. Hayum suggests that Erasmus recognized that there was a particular art to using the comparatively new medium of print as a means of communication and that his admiration for Durer (as expressed in the De pronuntiatione)is for his command of the equivalent "mass" communication form of engraving (A. Hayurn, "Durer's Portrait of Erasmus and the ars typographorum," RenaissanceQuarterly 38[1985],650-87) ("Durerus, quanquam et alias admirandus in monochromatis, hoc est nigris lineis, quid non exprimit?"). 103. "Rodolpho Agricolo et Alexandro Hegio, quibus ego sane minimum debebam, nonne plenam laudem tribuo?" (Spongiaadversusaspergines Hutteni [Basel, 1523],ed. C. Augustijn, OperaomniaDesideriiErasmiRoterodami9.1 [Amsterdam and Oxford, 1982],196). See C. Reedijk, The PoemsofDesideriusErasmus (Leiden,

86

Lisa Jardine

1956),42. As Reedijk points out, this recantation is confirmed by the phrase "nee aliud contigit" in Erasmus's Compendiumvitae) where he states that Agricola visited his school: " ... quem mihi puero ferme duodecim annos nato -Daventriaevidere contigit, nee aliud contigit" (Allen, OpusepistolarumI, 2). 104. P. S. Allen, OpusEpistolarumDes. ErasmiRoterodamiI, 384-88 (letter 174). 105. The Correspondence of ErasmusLetters 142 to 297) 1501 to 1514, tr. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson, CollectedWorksofErasmus4 (Toronto, 1977),65-69 (letter 174). 106. 1508-23. Altered in 1526edition to: "There were lying hidden in some people's possession his treatises on dialectic, and they have recently appeared, but in a mutilated state." 107. LB II 166A-167D; Margaret Mann Phillips, tr., Adages Li.I-Lv.IOO, CollectedWorksofErasmus31(Toronto, 1982), 348-51. 108. H. D. L. Vervleit, Post-Incunabulaand TheirPublishersin theLow CounPublishedin Commemotries:A SelectionBasedon WtJuterNlj'hoffJsL'art typographique ration of the I2sthAnniversary of Martinus N lj"hoffonJanuary I) 1978 (The Hague, 1978),118.Presumably based on a prefatory letter, which I have yet to see. 109. The problem in straightening out the publishing history of Agricola's works seems, indeed, to stem almost entirely from the complete separation of bibliographies of incunabula printing (pre-1500)from bibliographies of post-1500printing. Agricola's works crucially straddle the 1500dividing line in a bibliographically inconvenient way. 110. It is worth noting that Hain items 15921and 15922are further editions of this work by de Breda and Paffraet, respectively (who frequently exchanged sheets, publishing the same works in the same or consecutive years). 15921(undated) runs: "Vita divi Antonii. F.Ia: Vita divi Antonii ad sanctissimum Eugenium papam quartum: per Mapheum Vegium laudensem. Incipit una cum dialogo quodam de nativitate Christi a magistro Sandero Hegio Schole Daventriensis olim rectore compos ito et edito ... Impressum Daventriae per me Iacobum de Breda." The 15922entry runs: "Vita divi Antonii. F.Ia. tit: Vita diui Antonij ad Sanctissimum dnm Eugeni\\um papa[m] quartu[m]. p[er] Mapheu[m] vegium laudensem ... Impressum Dauentriae. In platea episcopi Anno d[omin ]i. Mcccc.yc.... nff (Rich. Paffroed.)" It seems to me entirely likely that both these editions contain the Agricola "Anna mater" as well as the Hegius dialogue as part of the customary padding with what Paffraet and de Breda had at hand. III. Allen, "Letters of Rudolph Agricola," 310(letters 3 and 4). 112. Incunabula in Dutch Libraries375,items 2514,2515. 113. The Correspondence ofErasmusLetters594 to 841) 1517to 1518)CollectedWorks ofErasmus5 (Toronto, 1979),137. 114. Iseghem, item 62 (231):"C'est la traduction faite par Agricola de trois opuscules grecs, a savoir: Isocratesde Regno;Luciani libellusde non credendisdelationibus;Luciani micyllussivegallus."

Inga Clendinnen 3. Cortes, Signs, and the

Conquest of Mexico Models of the Conquest The conquest of Mexico 1 mattered to the men of the sixteenth century because it provided Spaniards and other Europeans with their first great paradigm for European encounters with an organized native state and, in the person and strategy of Cortes, a model not only for other and lesser conquistadores, but, through the swift publication in several European languages of his dispatches to his king, for a much wider audience. It matters to us because it poses a painful question: how was it that a motley bunch of Spanish adventurers, never numbering more than four hundred or so, were able to defeat an Amerindian military power on its home ground within two years, and what was it about Spaniards, or about Indians, that made so awesomely implausible a victory possible? The question has not lost its potency through time and, as the consequences of the victory continue to unfold, has gained in poignancy. I will not seek to answer that question directly but rather to pursue the implications of one kind of answer often given to it. The Mexican conquest was reanimated for the English-speaking world through the marvelously dramatic history written by W. H. Prescott in the early 1840S, a best-seller in those glorious days when History still taught lessons. The lesson that great history taught was that Europeans will triumph over natives, however formidable the apparent odds, because of cultural superiority, manifesting itself visibly in equipment, but residing much more powerfully in mental and moral qualities. Prescott presents Spanish victory as flowing directly out of the contrast and the relationship between the two leaders: the Mexican ruler Moctezuma, despotic, effete, and rendered fatally indecisive by the "withering taint" of an irrational religion' and his infinitely resourceful adversary, Hernando Cortes. Prescott found in the person of the Spanish commander the model of European man: ruthless, pragmatic, single-minded, and (the unfortunate excessesof

88

Inga Clendinnen

Spanish Catholicism aside) superbly rational in his capacity to decide a course of action and to persist in it.' The general contours of the Prescottian fable are still clearly discernible in the most recent and certainly the most intellectually sophisticated account of the conquest, Tzvetan Todorov's The Conquest of America) published in French in 1982, in English translation in 1984. Todorov's Mexicans suffer decisive defects: faced with the European challenge they are other in ways which doom them. Dependent as they are on the rotelearnt wisdom of the past, that "submission of the present to the past,"together with their cyclical understanding of time, "where the singular event is merely the realization of omens always and already present,"paralyzes effective response to the unique event of the Spanish invasion. Although "masters in the art of ritual discourse," they are "inadequate in a situation requiring improvisation, and this is precisely the situation of the conquest": "their verbal [oral] education favors paradigm over syntagm, code over context, conformity-to-order over efficacity-of-themoment, the past over the present" (87). Signs for the Indians necessarily proceed from the world they designate, rather than being a weapon intended to manipulate the other. Their "characteristic interrogation" is not (as among the Spanish conquistadores) "praxeological, 'what's to be done?,' but epistemological: 'how are we to know?'" (69). Throughout the crisis Moctezuma is incapable of producing "appropriate and effective messages": "intentional messages do not communicate what their authors have hoped" (89); for example, Moctezuma's sending gold "to convince his visitors to leave the country" (87), while damaging unintentional messages fail to be suppressed: "the war cry the Indians invariably utter when they do battle, whose whole purpose is to alarm the enemy, actually reveals their presence and permits the Spaniards to orient themselves more effectively" (89). Meanwhile, the Spaniards are "specialists in human communication" (97): "what Cortes wants from the first is not to capture but to comprehend; it is signs which chiefly interest him, not their referents" (99). Faced with novel challenges he moves freely and effectively, "not only constantly practicing the art of adaptation and improvisation, but also being aware of it and claiming it as the very principle of his conduct" (87). So for Todorov, Cortes ensured his control over the Mexican empire (in a conquest he sees as "easy") through "his mastery of signs" (87). Note that this is not an idiosyncratic individual talent, but a European cultural capacity grounded in "literacy," where writing is considered "not as a tool,

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

89

but as an index of the evolution of mental structures": it is that evolution which liberates the manipulative intelligence, strategic flexibility, and semiotic sophistication through which Cortes and his men triumph. 3 I want to examine some of those claims about the nature of the contrast between European and Indian modes of thinking and action as demonstrated during the conquest encounter. First, for an overview of the action. Analysts and participants alike agree the conquest falls into two phases. The first begins with the Spanish landfall in April of 1519,and Cortes's assumption of independent command in defiance of the governor of Cuba, the patron of the expedition; the Spaniards' march inland, in the company of coastal Indians recently conquered by the Mexica, and marked first by bloody battles and then by alliance with the independent province ofTlaxcala; their entry into the rich city of Cholula, and their unprovoked attack on its people; their welcome into the Mexican imperial city Tenochtitlan, a city of perhaps 200,000 or more inhabitants, built on a lake?and linked to the land by three great causeways; the Spaniards' seizing of the "Great Speaker" Moctezuma, and their uneasy rule through him for six months; the arrival on the coast of another and much larger Spanish force charged with the arrest of Cortes, its defeat and incorporation into Cortes's own force; a native "uprising" in Tenochtitlan, triggered in Cortes's absence by the Spaniards' massacre of unarmed warriors dancing in a temple festival; the expulsion of the Spanish forces, with great losses, in mid-1520,and Moctezuma's death, probably at Spanish hands, immediately before that expulsion. End of the first phase. The second phase is much briefer in the telling, although about the same span in the living, a little over a year. The Spaniards retreated to friendly Tlaxcala to recover health and morale. They then renewed the attack, reducing the lesser lakeside cities, recruiting allies, not all of them voluntary, and placing Tenochtitlan under siege in May of 1521.The city fell to the combined forces of Cortes and an assortment of Indian "allies" in mid-August 1521.End of the second phase. Prescott and Todorov, like most analysts of the conquest, have concentrated on the first phase, drawn by the promising whiff of exoticism in Moctezuma's responses-allowing the Spaniards into his city, his docility in captivity-and by the sense that final outcomes were somehow immanent in that response, despite Moctezuma's removal from the stage in the midst of a Spanish rout a good year before the fall of the city, and despite the Spaniards' miserable situation in the darkest days before that fall, trapped out on the causeways, bereft of shelter and support, with the un-

90

Inga Clendinnen

reduced Mexica before and their "allies," potential wolves, behind. This dispiriting consensus as to Spanish invincibility and Indian vulnerability springs from the too eager acceptance of key documents, primarily Spanish but also Indian, as directly and adequately descriptive of actuality, rather than as the mythic constructs they largely are. Both the letters of Hernando Cortes and the main Indian account of the defeat of their city owe as much to the ordering impulse of imagination as to the devoted inscription of events as they occurred. The messy series of events that began with the landfall (Fig. 3.1) on the eastern coast has been shaped into an unforgettable successstory largely out of the gripping narratives of Hernando Cortes and Bernal Diaz, who were part of the action; that superb irresistible forward movement which so captivated Prescott, a selection and sequence imposed by men practiced in the European narrative tradition, and writing, for all their artfully concealed knowledge of outcomes, when outcomes were known. The foot soldier Bernal Diaz, finally completing his "True History" of the conquest in old age, can make our palms sweat with his account of yet another Indian attack, but at eighty-four he knew he was bequeathing his grandchildren a "true and remarkable story" about the triumph of the brave. The commander Hernando Cortes, writing his reports to the Spanish king in the thick of the events, had repudiated the authority of his patron and superior, the governor of Cuba, and so was formally in rebellion against the royal authority. He was therefore desperate to establish his credentials. His letters are splendid fictions, marked by politic elisions, omissions, inventions, and a transparent desire to impress the king with his own indispensability. One of the multiple delights in their reading is to watch the creation of something of a Horatio figure, an exemplary soldier and simplehearted loyalist unreflectivelyobedient to his king and the letter of the law: all attributes implicitly denied by the beautiful control and calculation of the literary construction itself. The elegance of Cortes's literary craft is nicely indicated by his handling of a daunting problem of presentation. In his "Second Letter," written in late October 1520 on the eve of the second thrust against Tenochtitlan, he had somehow to inform the king of the Spaniards' first awareness of the splendor of the great city, the early coups, the period of perilous authority, the inflow of gold, the accumulation of magnificent riches-and the spectacular debacle of the expulsion, with the flounderings in the water, the panic, the loss of gold, horses, artillery, reputation, and altogether too many Spanish lives. Cortes's solution was a most devoted commitment to

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

9I

Figure 3.1. Collapsing time: the Spaniards are sighted (upper right); disembark (lower left); Dona Marina interprets for Cortes (lower right). Florentine Codex, Book 12, Plate I. Courtesy of Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana.

a strict narrative unfolding of events, so the city is wondered at; the dead Moctezuma speaks, frowns; the marketplace throbs and hums; laden canoes glide through the canals; and so on to the dark denouement. And through all continues the construction of his persona as leader: endlessly flexible,yet unthinkingly loyal; endlessly resourceful, yet fastidious in legal niceties; magnificently daring in strategy and performance, yet imbued with a fine caution in calculating costs. It is unsurprising that along the way Cortes should claim "the art of adaptation and improvisation" as "the very principle of his conduct"; and that we, like his critical royal audience, should be impressed by his magisterial mastery of men and events; domi-

92

Inga Clendinnen

nating and duping Moctezuma, neutralizing Spanish disaffection by appeals to duty, law, and faith; managing Indians with kind words, stern justice, and contrived displays of the superiority of Spanish arms and the priority of the Spanish god. , The notion of fatal Indian passivity is powerfully' introduced by Cortes's extended and circumstantial account of his relationship with the captive Moctezuma during the initial six-month stay in the city. Cortes insisted on the voluntarism of Moctezuma's submission, presenting his reception of the Spaniards as an explicit abdication in favor of a legitimate ruler returned. (His seizing and imprisonment, unintelligible given that account of things, is therefore presented as no more than a precaution, prompted by the farsighted Cortes's anxiety that the Great Speaker's perfect docility might be ruptured by some inadvertent Spanish roughness.") Cortes went on to describe his administration of the affairs of what he represented as a thriving colony which had never needed conquering, "seeing to the things which I thought were required in the service of Your Sacred Majesty and subduing and persuading to Your service many provinces and lands, discovering mines and finding out many of the secrets of Moetezuma's lands and of those which bordered on them and those of which he had knowledge. . . . All of which was done with such good will and delight on the part of Moctezuma and all the natives of the aforementioned lands that it seemed as if ab initio they had known Your Sacred Majesty to be their king and rightful lord; and with no less good will have they done all that I, in Your Royal name, have commanded them." Then came the fatal Spanish expedition under Narvaez, inspired by the malice and envy of the Cuban governor; the tranquil, productive order was disrupted, and all, despite Cortes's heroic endeavors, was lost." And so to the rest of the story as Cortes chose to tell it. J. H. Elliott and Anthony Pagden have traced the filaments of Cortes's web of fictions back to particular strands of Spanish political culture, and to his particular and acute predicament within it, and have explained the "legitimate inheritors returning" theme by demonstrating its functional necessity in Cortes's legalistic strategy, which pivoted on Moctezuma's voluntary cession of his empire and his authority to Charles of Spain-a splendidly implausible notion, save that so many have believed it. 6 Bernal Diaz is a rather different case. He is not quite Prescott's "untutored child of nature" dedicated to an I-am-a-camera verisimilitude or the "honest eyewitness" he promises us in his prologue. He recycles what he had been told or gleaned at the time, came to believe in the years be-

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

93

tween experience and writing, or was teased into "remembering" in reaction to the competing "History" written by Cortes's chaplain, which lay at his elbow as he wrote. Nonetheless, despite the lapse of years, despite the occasional disarming efforts at self-promotion, he is invaluable: one of those rare observers so in love with the extraordinariness of what he sees as to be content to describe it, without too much elaboration or interpretation.' But along with that marvelous facticity went a delight in presenting "the natives" as gullible. He makes much of naive Indians' marvelings at the great Spanish dogs, the ferocious horses which chased down Indians on command, the cannon which spoke out of iron mouths, and, above all, of the fact that the native term for the Spaniards, "teule" in the Spanish hearing of it, for the Nahuatl "teotl," meant "god." 8 This identification has been made to bear massive import, as with Todorov, who presents "the paralyzing belief that the Spaniards [were] gods" as crucial: "the Indians' mistake did not last long . . . but just long enough for the battle to be definitivelylost and America subject to Europe" (77). Diaz's kind of running on about the quaint notions of the natives, however therapeutic for nervous incomers, finds its ground in the distortions of radically thinned translation. For example, the word "teotl" does indeed have the meaning of "god." It was also used to convey the notion of "a thing consummate in good or in evil": that is, powerful or extreme in character, or, as we might say,"weird." It is a European preference to claim it as a recognition of divinity. Diaz himself "knew" this: it was, he said, only after Cortes had dared to urge violence against Mexican tax gatherers who had entered the coastal tributary town of Cempoalla that the local lords "said that no human beings would dare to do such things, and that it was the work of Teules, for so they call the idols which they worship, and for this reason from that time forth, they called us Teules, which is as much as to say that we were either gods or demons." But he was not attentive to it, and so "gods" the Spaniards became. His gleeful dwellings on manipulative mystifications pandered then as they do now to a familiar "smart Europeans bamboozle innocent natives" notion, powerfully gratifying in its reduction of the Other to patsy." It is true that the most elaborate Indian account of the conquest, the twelfth book of Fray Bernardino de Sahagun's Florentine Codex, compiled from the recollections of surviving native informants, introduces a Moctezuma paralyzed first by omens, and then by the conviction that Cortes was the god Quetzalcoatl, Precious-Feather Serpent, returned. (Quetzalcoatl-Topiltzin, ruler of the mythic "Tollan," or Tula, the previous

94

Inga Clendinnen

great imperial power in the valley before he withdrew to the east in some shadowy former time, was ambiguously associated with QuetzalcoatlEhecatl, the Wind God.) We are given vivid descriptions of Moctezuma's vacillations, tremulous decisions, collapses of will, panic, as he awaits the Spaniards' coming, and then of his supine acquiescence in their depredations, while his lords abandon him in disgust. That is a very late-dawning story, making its first appearance thirty and more years after the conquest. Its acceptance requires that Sahagun's informants had been privy to Moctezuma's responses to the first news of the Spanish landfalls, as to the activities of the inner court ofTenochtitlan. In actuality very few men in the closed politics of the city would have had access to Moctezuma's person, and fewer still to his thoughts. Sahagun's informants, young and inconsequential men in 1519, would not have been among those few. In that first phase they can report on certain events (the entry of the Spaniards into the city, the massacre of the warrior dancers) which were public knowledge, and to which they were perhaps witness, with some degree of "accuracy," although even their reporting, it is worth remembering, will be framed in accordance with Mexica notions of significance. But the dramatic description of the disintegration of Moctezuma bears the hallmarks of a post-conquest scapegoating of a leader who had indeed admitted the Spaniards to his city in life, and so was made to bear the weight of the unforeseeable consequences in death. 10 What the informants offer for most of the first phase of the conquest is unabashed mythic history, a telling of what ought to have happened along with a little of what did in a satisfying mix of collapsing time, eliding episodes, and dramatized encounters as they came to be understood in the bitter years after the conquest. With the fine economy of myth, Moctezuma is represented as being made the Spaniards' prisoner at their initial meeting, thenceforth to be their helpless toy, leading them to his treasures, "each holding him, each grasping him," as they looted and pillaged at will." In the Dominican Diego Duran's account, built in part from painted native chronicles unknown to us, in part from conquistador recollections, this process of distillation to essential "truth" is carried even further, with Moetezuma pictured as emerging from his first meeting with Cortes with his feet shackled." It is likely here that Duran made a literal interpretation of a symbolic representation: in retrospective native understanding, Moctezuma was captive to the Spaniards, a shackled icon, from the first moments. Todorov has found "something emblematic in Moctezuma's repeated refusal to communicate with the intruders," and something pathetic about

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

95

his incapacity to convey the intended message when he did (for example, the gold sent to persuade the Spaniards to go away). The message exchanges were public events reported in both Spanish and Indian accounts, and so perhaps will bear some analysis. The problem here is too narrow a definition of "communication" as primarily verbal." Moctezuma communicated at least as much by the splendor and status of his emissaries, by their gestures and their gifts, as by the nuances of their most conventionalized speech. None of the nonverbal messages could Cortes read, nor is it clear that his chief Nahuatl interpreter Marina, as a woman and a slave, would or could inform him of the protocols in which they were framed: these were the high and public affairs of men. The first "gifts" he interpreted variously as gestures of submission or as naive attempts at bribery, and this despite the fluency of his own language of gifts, sending as his first prestations to Moctezuma a crimson cap decorated with a St. George medallion and a carved chair along with the usual glass beads, with the request that the Mexica ruler should welcome him into Tenochtitlan sitting on his Spanish chair with his Spanish cap on his head." From what we know of Amerindian cultures, Moctezuma's "gifts" were statements of dominance, superb gestures of wealth and liberality made the more glorious by the arrogant humility of their giving: statements to which the Spaniards lacked both the wit and the means to reply. (To the next flourish of gifts, carried by more than a hundred porters and including the famous "cartwheels" of gold and silver, Cortes's riposte was a cup of Florentine glass and three holland shirts. IS) As indicated by the "teotl" example, the verbal exchanges for all of the first phase are not much easier to retrieve. We glimpse some moments of communication of raw sense, but not of intended meaning: for example, Cortes's attempt to convey innocent curiosity, straightforwardness, and flattery by his expressed desire "to look upon Moctezuma's face." That ambition, conveyed to a ruler whose mana was such that his face could not be looked upon save by a special few must have seemed marvelously threatening, and could suffice to explain Moctezuma's purported determination that the Spaniards should not come to his city. While Anthony Pagden has persuasively demonstrated how many of its formulations echoed Spanish and European usages, and most precisely met Cortes's specific political needs, the famous "abdication" speech of Moctezuma as reported by Cortes need not have been a complete fiction. It is possible that Moctezuma used some "my house is your house" formula-such expressions were current in Nahuatl, as they were and are in

96

Inga Clendinnen

many tongues-but being told to make yourself at home is not usually interpreted as an invitation to sell the furniture. And despite those reassuring inverted commas of direct reportage, all of those so-fluent speeches passed through a complicated chain of interpreters, with each step a struggle for some approximation of unfamiliar concepts. Such discourse presents in acute form the classic problems of "translation" and of mangled messages. We cannot know at what point the shift from the Indian notion of "he who pays tribute" to the Spanish one of "vassal" was made, but we know the shift to be momentous. Throughout all of that first phase verbal communication remained rudimentary. For the six months the Spaniards spent in the city, Cortes was sufficiently starved for information to be grateful for the gleanings of the Spanish lad Orteguilla, page to Moctezuma, who, having picked up some Nahuatl, made what sense he could of the conversations overheard in the course of his duties. In part our puzzlement over the peaceful entry into Tenochtitlan is self-inflicted, and springs from our knowledge of Cortes's brisk statement of his program in his second letter to his king: to "take him [Moctezuma] alive in chains or make him subject to Your Majesty's Royal Crown." He continued: "With that purpose I set out from the town of Cempoal, which I renamed Sevilla, on the sixteenth of August with fifteen horsemen and three hundred foot soldiers, as well equipped for war as the conditions permitted me to make them." 16 There we have it: warlike intentions clear, native cities renamed as possessions in a new polity, an army on the move. Inured to the duplicitous language of diplomacy, we take Cortes's persistent swearing of friendship and the innocence of his intentions as transparent deceptions. Cortes's own confusion deepens our confidence in our reading, as he aggressively sought to collect what he called "vassals" along the way, with no demur from Moctezuma. For example, the lord "Panuco" sent gifts and freely offered to supply certain Spaniards in his region whom he took to be members of Cortes's party with food." These were almost certainly not gestures of political subordination but the normal courtesies-the provision of supplies and, if necessary, warmth and shelterextended to official travelers within the more effectively subdued Mexica territories. Where Cortes made the condition of "vassal" more explicit by requesting not food or carriers but gold, the request was as directly denied. The Tlaxcalans, with hostiles on their frontiers, fought the Spaniards because they had breached their symbolic wall. No such wall guarded the imperial city of Tenochtitlan, open as it had to be to trade, tribute, and legitimate travelers (Fig. 3.2). Even had Moctezuma somehow divined the

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

97

Pbn ()f 'Tcnochtirlar believed to have been drawn tor

Cortes

Figure 3.2. Plan ofTenochtitlan believed to have been drawn for Cortes; printed with the Latin edition of his "Second Letter" (Nuremberg, 1524). Courtesy of the British Library.

Spaniards' hostile intent, to attack without formal warning was not an option for a ruler of his magnificence. Cortes declared he came as an ambassador, and as an ambassador he appears to have been received. The lodging of the Spaniards in a royal palace is not especially remarkable, visiting rulers and ranking ambassadors being routinely luxuriously housed and feted, in the not unfamiliar determination to impress potentially troublesome visitors while keeping an eye on them. 18 Nonetheless, there is much that is puzzling in Moctezuma's conduct. The acts of Spanish terror against particular towns, like the killings in the tribute city of Cholula, need have carried no clear message of hostility

98

Inga Clendinnen

against the Mexica: in that polity of discrete political units the Cholulans, apart from their quite precise tribute obligations, were autonomous. But the Tlaxcalan involvement in those killings is a different case: they ought to have been punished. Even more disquieting is Moctezuma's admission of the enemy Tlaxcalansinto his city. In the Florentine Codex account they enter in battle array and making their war cries, which strains credulity. Duran claims their entry was questioned by Moctezuma, and that Cortes stated he was bringing them in not as soldiers, but carriers. Just possibly that could be accepted, if the Tlaxcalansstayed close to the Spaniards at all times-but only if they were not "in battle array." 19 One factor clearly distinguished Moctezuma from his own and other lesser lords, as it distinguished the Mexica from the non-Mexica. The Mexica insisted-with some plausibility, given the grandeur of their achievements, exemplifiedin the grandeur of their city-that Mexica tribal history was implicated in the sacred; that they were a chosen people predestined to dominate, standing in special relationship to the gods; that their own tutelary deity Huitzilopochtli was identified with the sun, and their own political dominance with cosmic necessity. In face of the visible might and magnificence of Tenochtitlan, no other Central Mexican people could plausibly present a counterclaim, however little they might have been persuaded, however obstinate their own dreams of glory. Nor could those other peoples, whose time was not yet, be as directly threatened by an untoward intrusion. The Maya ofYucatan also held vague notions of a self-exiledculture hero who might one day return. Yet they had no epistemological doubts when faced with Spaniards: they killed or enslaved those unlucky enough to be shipwrecked on their shores, and met more deliberate landfalls briskly, identifying these strangers as equivalent to earlier invaders, fighting them with determination, and only when very thoroughly defeated acquiescing-for the moment-in the Spaniards' political domination. The Yucatecan cognitive situation was simpler than that of the Mexica: invasion was a familiarstory, not a crisispotentially marking the end of a great imperial system." Most of the Indian peoples of the mainland seem to have responded as pragmatically as the Maya, attacking, exploiting, or cooperating with the intruders as the situation allowed. It was the peculiar responsibility, and therefore the vulnerability of the Mexica, or more precisely he among the Mexica who happened to be responsible for such matters at the time of the encounter, to define and diagnose in cosmic terms the significanceof the Spaniards: who they were; what their coming meant. For others-those readily aggressive Tlaxcalans, even those lofty

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

99

Mexica tax gatherers-the question of identification was not pressing. For Moctezuma, emblem and representative of the Mexica and of the Mexica empire in its external dealings, it was primary. It would have been remarkable if the "departed ruler returned" hypothesis had not been considered, however briefly (we have a similar rumor in general circulation, which would probably at least be entertained in similar circumstances), but there is no clear indication on the evidence when carefully assayed that it long influenced his mind. Here I think a heroic act of renunciation is required. Historians are the camp followers of the imperialists: as always in this European and native kind of history, part of our problem is the disruption of "normal" practice effected by the breach through which we have entered. For Cortes, the acute deference shown Moctezuma's person established him as the supreme authority and executive of the empire. In fact we know neither the nature nor the extent of the Great Speaker's normal authority within and beyond Tenochtitlan, nor (given the exuberant discrepancies between the Cortes and Diaz accounts) the actual degree of coercion and physical control imposed on him during his captivity. The apparently smooth functioning of the city throughout his imprisonment, during which time he was permitted to receive ambassadors and foreign lords, perhaps suggests that the officialtitled Cihuacoatl, ''Woman Snake," was indeed in charge of internal "administration," if that is not too active a notion for the smooth, routinized system of rotated obligations by which the city seems to have lived. From the fugitive glimpses we get of the attitudes of some of the other valley rulers, and of his own advisers, we can infer something of the complicated politics of the metropolis and the surrounding city-states, but we see too little to decode the character of Moctezuma's authority, much less its particular fluctuations under the stress of foreign intrusion. Nor, against this uncertain ground, can we hope to catch the flickering indicators of possible individual idiosyncrasy. We must resign ourselves to allowing much of his conduct to remain enigmatic. We cannot know how he categorized the newcomers, or what he intended by his apparently determined and certainly unpopular cooperation with his captors: whether to save his empire, his city, his position, or merely his own skin.

Strategies Of Cortes we know much more, which presents its own problems of categorization and assessment. He was not remarkable as a combat leader:

100

Inga Clendinnen

personally brave, an indispensable quality in one who would lead Spaniards, he lacked the panache of an Alvarado, the solidity and coolness of a Sandoval. He preferred talk to force with Spaniards or Indians, a preference no doubt designed to preserve numbers, but also indicative of a personal style. He knew who to pay in flattery, who in gold, and the men he bought usually stayed bought. He knew how to stage a theatrical event for maximum effect, as in the plays concocted to terrify Moctezuma's envoys-a stallion, plunging uncontrollably as he scented a mare in estrusa cannon fired to blast a tree. When he did use force he had a flair for doing so theatrically, amplifying the effect; cutting off the hands of fifty or more Tlaxcalan emissaries freely admitted into the Spanish camp, then mutilated as "spies"; the mass killings at Cholula; the shackling of Moctezuma while "rebellious" chiefs were burnt before his palace in Tenochtitlan. He was a man careful to count every Spanish life, yet capable of conceiving heroic strategies-to lay siege to a lake-girt city, the prefabrication of thirteen brigantines on the far side of the mountains, eight thousand carriers to transport the pieces, their reassembly in Texcoco, the digging of a canal and the deepening of the lake for their successful launching. And he was capable not only of the grand design but of the construction and maintenance of the steepling alliances, intimidations, and promised rewards necessary to implement it (Fig. 3.3). In that extraordinary capacity to sustain a complex vision through the constant scanning and assessment of unstable factors, as in his passion and talent for control of self and others, Cortes was incomparable. (The concern for control might explain his inadequacies in combat: in the radically uncontrolled and uncontrollable environment of battle, he had a tendency to lose his head.) None of this undoubted flair makes Cortes the model of calculation and rationality he is so often taken to be. His situation was paradoxically made easier by his status as rebel. That saved him from the agonizing assessment of different courses of action: once gone from Cuba, in defiance of the governor, he could not turn back, saveto certain dishonor and probable death. So we have the gambler's advance, with no secured lines back to the coast, no supplies, no reinforcements, the ships deliberately disabled on the beach to release the sailors for soldiering service and to persuade the fainthearted against retreat, and behind him in Cuba an implacable enemy. The relentless march on Mexico impresses, until one asks just what Cortes intended once he'd got there. We have the drive to the city, the seizing of Moctezuma-and then the agonizing wait by this unlikely Micawber for something to turn up, as the Spaniards, uncertainly toler-

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

101

Figure 3.3. The siege in place. Lienzo de Tlaxcala, Plate 4-2. Courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

ated guests, sat in the city, clutching the diminishing resource of Moctezuma's prestige as their only weapon. That something proved to be the Spanish punitive expedition, a couple of providential ships carrying gunpowder and a few reinforcements and so a perilous way out of the impasse. Perhaps Cortes had had in mind a giant confidence trick: a slow process of securing and fortifying posts along the road to Vera Cruz and then, with enough gold amassed, to send to the authorities in Hispaniola (bypassing Velazquez and Cuba) for ships, horses, and arms, which is the strategy he in fact followed after the retreat from Tenochtitlan." It is nonetheless difficult (save in Cortes's magisterial telling of it) to read the performance as rational. As John Elliott has observed: "it is hard to think of a crazier strategy." 22

102

Inga Clendinnen

His genius lay in his capacity to coax, bully, and bribe his men, dream-led, dream-fed, into making the same gambler's throw; to participate in his own desperate personal destiny. Bernal Diaz recorded one of Cortes's speeches at a singularly low point in the Tlaxcalan campaign. With numbers already dangerously depleted, the remaining men wounded, cold, frightened, the natives ferocious, Cortes is reported as promising his men not wealth, not salvation, but deathless historical fame." Again and again we see Cortes dare to cheat his followers in the distribution of loot and of "good-looking Indian women," but he never discounted the glory of their endeavors. He lured them to acknowledge their own most extreme fantasies; then he persuaded them, by his own enactment of them, that the fantasies were realizable.24 A brilliant leader-of Spaniards. How effective was he in encounter with Indians, in this first phase? The acts of terror were possibly useful: after the "spies" episode, the Tlaxcalans sued for peace and alliance." But, as I will argue, routine acts of war in the European style were probably significantly more destructive of Indian confidence in their ability to predict Spanish behavior. His mystification maneuvers were minimally effective, however dear they were to Spanish self-esteem. The Cempoallan chief tricked into doing what he so much wanted to do (seizing Moctezuma's tax gatherers) remained notably more afraid of Moctezuma in his far palace than of the hairy Spaniards at his elbow." Nor was manipulation all on the Spanish side: the chief tricked into defiance of Moctezuma immediately tricked Cortes into leading four hundred Spaniards on a hot and futile march of more than fifteen miles in pursuit of phantom Mexica warriors, in his own pursuit of a private feud, but that is notably less remarked on." There are other indications (of Tlaxcalan involvement in provoking the Cholula massacre, for example) which hint at extensive native manipulations, guile being admired among Indians as it was among Spaniards, and Spanish dependence on Indian informants and translators being total, but they are indications only, given the relative opacity and ignorance of the Spanish sources on what the Indians were up to. Here I am not concerned to demonstrate the natives to have been as great deceivers as the Spaniards, but simply to suggest we have no serious grounds for claiming they were not. As for his sensitivity to signs: in Cempoalla Cortes destroyed the existing idols, whitewashed the existing shrine, washed the existing attendants and cut their hair, dressed them in white, and taught these hastily renovated priests to offer flowers and candles before an image of the Vir-

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

103

gin; an intriguing economy of effort. The pagan attendants might have been clad suitably clerically,in long black robes like soutanes, with some hooded "like Dominicans," but they also had waist-long hair clotted with human blood, and stank of decaying human flesh. Nonetheless, they were "read" as "priests," and therefore fit to be entrusted with the Virgin's shrine." All this was achieved at the sword's point, despite Cempoalla being the town on whose goodwill the little fort of Vera Cruz was most dependent. Cortes was not to be so impolitic again, but his later excursions into the religious zone were marked more by vigor than curiosity as to how the natives might interpret his interventions. 29 A more consequential opacity lay at the center of his crucial firstphase strategy. In the thick of the Mexica "uprising," Cortes forced Moetezuma out on to the roof of the Spanish quarters to calm his people, despite Moctezuma's insistence that they were his people no longer, having found a new lord. As Cortes heard the cries of anger and saw the shower of stones, he must at last have known that his puppet had broken in his hands. It is unlikely that he realized how much he had to do with the breaking. He had taken Moctezuma to be absolute ruler over an empire and over Tenochtitlan. That conviction rested on his own notions of imperial power, with the Spanish emperor Charles as model, and on the extreme deference offered Moctezuma's person: approached closely only by kinsmen; walking in gold while lords went barefoot and humble. Diaz had noted how at the first formal entry of the Spaniards into the imperial city, "none of these lords thought of looking Moctezuma in the face, but kept their eyes lowered with much reverence, except for those kinsmen, his nephews, who were supporting him," and that when Cortes moved to embrace him, he was prevented by the attendant lords, "for they considered it an indignity." 30 Nonetheless, he was persuaded that Moctezuma was "delighted" with the courtesies he was offered in the Spanish quarters, for "whenever we came before him we all of us, even Cortes, doffed our caps and helmets." 31 "Even Cortes." Cortes can have had no sense of how inadequate such gestures were to preserve the authority of the Great Speaker. (He reported as no more than a quaint detail of exotic protocol that "certain of [the] chiefs reproved the Spaniards, saying that when they spoke to me they did so openly without hiding their faces, which seemed to them disrespectful and lacking in modesty.") His simple pragmatism at first "worked": Moctezuma could be seized in his own palace by armed Spaniards precisely because such an action was unthinkable. But the authority through which

104

Inga Clendinnen

Cortes sought to rule had begun to bleed away from the initial encounter with Spanish unmannerliness, as they gazed and gabbled at the sacred ruler." It bled faster as they seized his person. Then Cortes, intent on achieving personal psychological domination, had Moctezuma shackled as his chiefs died in the flames of Spanish fires, from which novel treatment, he complacently reported, "he received no small fright."33 Moctezuma's authority could not survive such casual manhandling. Diego Durin's account of Moctezuma pictured as emerging shackled from his first meeting with Cortes is "objectively" wrong, but from the Indian political perspective right: the Great Speaker in the power of outsiders, casually and brutally handled, was the Great Speaker no longer. His replacement probably came when Cortes (now in his conciliatory mode) released Moctezuma's formidable brother Cuitlahuac, lord ofIxtapalapa, to assuage Indian anger: immediately the attack took on a new coherence. As Moctezuma stepped out on to the roof, he knew he could effect nothing; that his desacralization had been accomplished, first and unwittingly by Cortes, then, presumably, by a ritual action masked from us, and that a new Great Speaker had been chosen: a step unprecedented to my knowledge in Mexica history. There can be no doubt of Cortes's determination to master and to manipulate, but it is difficult to see much "mastery of signs" in all this."

Battle Analysts, save for military historians, have overwhelmingly concentrated on the first phase of the conquest, assuming that from that point the consummation of the Spanish victory was merely a matter of applying a technological superiority: horsemen against pedestrian warriors, steel swords against wooden clubs; muskets and crossbows against bows, arrows, and lances; cannon against ferocious courage. I would argue that the final conquest was a very close-run thing; a view with which, as it happens, the combatants on both sides would agree. After the Spanish ejection from Tenochtitlan the Mexica remained heavily favored in things material, most particularly manpower, which more than redressed any imbalance in equipment. Spanish technology had its problems: the miseries of slithering or cold-cramped or foundering horses, wet powder, the brutal weight of the cannon. A great smallpox epidemic had come and gone, but its ravages had presumably affected committed "allies" of the Spaniards and of the Mexica equally. The sides were approximately matched in knowledge: if

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

105

Cortes was to profit from his familiarity with the fortifications and functioning of the lake city, the Mexica at last knew the Spaniards as enemies, and were under the direction of a ruler liberated from the ambiguities which appear to have bedeviled Moctezuma. We tend to have a "Lord of the Flies" view of battle: that in deadly combat the veils of "culture" are ripped away, and natural man confronts himself. But if combat is not quite as cultural as cricket, its brutalities are nonetheless rule-bound. Like cricket, it requires a sustained act of cooperation, of an admittedly peculiar kind, with each side constructing the conditions in which both will operate, and so, where the struggle is between strangers, obliging a mutual "transmission of culture" of the shotgun variety. And because of its high intensities, it promises to expose how one's own and other ways of acting and meaning are understood and responded to in crisis conditions, and what lessons about the other and oneself can be learned in that intimate, involuntary, and most consequential communication. The sources for the second phase are comparatively solid. Since it is cultural assumptions we are after, equivocation in recollection and recording matter little. Cortes edits his debacle on the Tacuba causeway, where more than fifty Spaniards were taken alive through his own impetuosity, into a triumph of leadership in crisis; Diaz marvels at Spanish bravery under the tireless onslaughts of savages: both are agreed as to the vocabulary through which they understand, assess and record battle behavior. SahagUn's informants, able to report only bitter hearsay and received myth on the obscure political struggles of the first phase, move to confident detail in their accounts of the struggle for the city, in which at least some of them appear to have fought, naming precise locations and particular warrior feats; revealing in the structure of their accounts as much as in their rich detail their principles of battle. The challenge is to assess how effective each group was as innovators, and how well they "read" each other. War, at least war as fought among the dominant peoples of Central Mexico, and at least ideally, was a sacred contest, the outcome unknown but preordained, revealing which city (and which local deity) would rightfully dominate another. Something like equal terms were therefore required: to prevail by mere numbers or by some piece of treachery would vitiate the significance of the contest. So important was this notion of fair testing that food and weapons were sent to the selected target as part of the challenge, there being no virtue in defeating a weakened enemy. 35 The warriors typically met outside the city of the defenders. Should

106

Inga Clendinnen

the attacking side prevail, they swept into the city to fire the temple where the local deity had its place. That action marked victory in occurrence and record; the formal sign for conquest in the painted histories was a burning temple. Free pillage continued until the terms of tribute were set: then the victors withdrew to their home city with their booty and their captives, including not only the warriors taken in the formal battle, but "civilians" seized during the period of plunder, and (if the victors were Mexica and imbued with Mexica pretensions) with the image of the defeated deity the most significant captive, to be held in the "god captive house" in Tenochtitlan, Defeat was bitter because it was a statement and judgment of inferiority, on individuals and on the group, a judgment the victorious warriors were only too ready to reinforce by savage mockery, and which was institutionalized by the imposition of tribute." The duration of the decision was always problematical. Defeated towns paid their tribute as a regular decision against further hostilities, but remained independent, and usually notably disaffected, despite the conquering city's conviction of the legitimacy of its supremacy. Many towns in the valley,allied or defeated or intimidated by the Mexica, paid their token tribute, fought alongside the Mexica in Mexica campaigns, and shared in the spoils, but they remained mindful of their humiliation and unreconciled to their subordination. The monolithic "Aztec empire" is a European hallucination: in this atomistic polity, the units were held together by the tension of mutual repulsion. (Therefore the ease with which Cortes could recruit "allies," too often taken as a tribute to his silver tongue, and therefore the deep confusion attending his constant use of the word "vassal"to describe the relationship of subject towns first to Tenochtitlan, and later to the Spanish Crown.) If war was ideally a sacred duel between peoples (and so between the gods of those peoples), battle was ideally a sacred duel between matched warriors, a contest in which the taking of a fitting captive for presentation to one's own deity was a precise measure of one's own valor, and one's own fate. One prepared for this individual combat by song, and the ritual decking with the sacred war regalia. (To go "always prepared for battle" in the Spanish style was unintelligible: a man carrying arms was only potentially a warrior.) The great warrior, scarred, painted, plumed, wearing the record of his victories in his regalia, screaming his war cry, erupting from concealment or looming suddenly through the rising dust, could make lesser men flee by the pure terror of his presence: warriors were practiced in projecting ferocity. There were maneuverings to "surprise" the enemy,

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

107

and a fascination with ambush, but only as a device to confront more dramatically: to strike from hiding was unthinkable. Indian weaponry, with its dearth of effective projectile weapons and its emphasis on the obsidianstudded war club, signaled warrior combat aims: the seizing of captives for presentation before the tutelary deity. In the desperation of the last stages of the battle for Tenochtitlan, Mexica inhibition against battleground killing was somewhat reduced: Indian "allies" died and Spaniards who could not be quickly subdued were killed, most often, as the Mexica were careful to specify, and for reasons which will become clear, by having the backs of their heads beaten in. But the priority on the individual seizing of preferably important captives remained. In other regards the Mexica responded with flexibility to the challenges of siege warfare. They read Spanish tactics reasonably accurately: a Spanish assault on the freshwater aqueduct at Chapultepec was foreseen, and furiously, if fruitlessly, resisted. The brigantines, irresistible at their first appearance on the lake, were later lured into a carefully conceived ambush in which two were trapped. The horses' vulnerability to uneven ground, to attack from below, their panic under hails of missiles, were all exploited effectively. The Mexica borrowed Spanish weapons: Spanish swords lashed to poles or Spanish lances to disembowel or hamstring the horses; even Spanish crossbows, after captive crossbowmen had been forced to show them how the machines worked." It was Indian invention and tenacity which forced Cortes to the desperate remedy of leveling structures along the causeways and into the city to provide the Spaniards with the secure ground they needed to deploy their horses and cannon effectively. And they were alert to the possibilities of psychological warfare, capitalizing on the Spaniards' peculiar dread of death by sacrifice and of the cannibalizing of the corpse. On much they could be flexible. But on that most basic measure of man's worth they could not compromise. The passion for captives meant that the moment when the opponent's nerve broke was helplessly compelling, an enemy in flight an irresistible lure. The pursuit reflex was sometimes exploited by native opponents as a slightly shabby trick. It was to provide Cortes with a standard tactic for a quick and sure crop of kills. Incurious as to the reason, he nonetheless noted and exploited Mexica unteachability: Sometimes, as we were thus withdrawing and they pursued us so eagerly, the horsemen would pretend to be fleeing, and then suddenly would turn on them; we always took a dozen or so of the boldest. By these means and by the ambushes which we set for them, they were always much hurt; and certainly it was a remark-

108

Inga Clendinnen

able sight for even when they well knew the harm they would receive from us as we withdrew, they still pursued us until we had left the city.38

The passion could not be relinquished merely because it had become fatal. That commitment bore heavily on outcomes. Had Indians been as uninhibited as the Spaniards in their killing, the small Spanish group, with no secured source of replenishment, would soon have been whittled away to nothing. In battle after battle the Spaniards report the deaths of many Indians, while their own men suffer not fatalities but wounds, and fasthealing wounds at that: those flint and obsidian blades sliced clean. It preserved the life of Cortes: time and again the Spanish leader struggled in Indian hands, the prize in a disorderly tug of war, with men dying on each side in the furious struggle for possession, and each time the Spaniards prevailed. Were Cortes in our hands, we would knife him. Mexica warriors could not kill the enemy leader so casually: were he to die, it would be in the temple of Huitzilopochtli. 39 If the measurable consequences were obvious and damaging, there were others less obvious, but perhaps more significant. We have already noted the Spanish predilection for ambush as part of a wider preference for killing at least risk. Spaniards valued their crossbows and muskets for their capacity to pick off selected enemies well behind the line of engagement: as snipers, as we would say. The psychological demoralization attending those sudden, trivializing deaths of great men painted for war, but not yet engaged in combat, must have been formidable. (Were the victim actively engaged in battle, the matter was different. Then he died nobly; although pierced by a bolt from a distance, his blood flowed forth to feed the earth as a warrior's should.) But more than Indian deaths and demoralization was effected through these transactions: to inflict such deaths-at a distance, without putting one's own life in play-also developed a Mexica reading of the character of the Spanish warrior." Consider this one episode, told by a one-time conquistador. Two Indian champions, stepping out from the mass of warriors, offered their formal challenge before a Spanish force. Cortes responded by ordering two horsemen to charge, their lances poised. One of the warriors, against all odds, contrived to sever a horse's hooves, and then, as it crashed to the ground, slashed its neck. Cortes, seeing the risk to the unhorsed rider, had a cannon fired so that "all the indians in the front ranks were killed and the others scattered." The two Spaniards recovered themselves and scuttled back to safety under the covering fire of muskets, crossbows, and cannon."

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

109

For Cortes the individual challenge had been a histrionic preliminary flourish: he then proceeded to the serious work of using firepower to kill warriors, and to control more territory, which was what he took war to be about. Throughout, Spaniards measured success in terms of body counts, territory controlled, and evidence of decay in the morale of the "enemy," which included all warriors, actively engaged in battle or not, and all "civilians" too. Cortes casuallyinformed the king of his dawn raids into sleeping villagesand the slaughter of the inhabitants, men, women, and children, as they stumbled into the streets: these were necessary and conventional steps in the progressive control of terrain, and the progressive demoralization of opposition. To an Indian warrior, Cortes's riposte to the challenge was shameful, with only the horses, putting themselves within reach of the Indian champions' weapons, emerging with any credit. Cortes's descents on villages are reported in tones breathing incredulity: on the Spanish retreat from Tenochtitlan they "quickly slew the people of Calacoaya . . . [they] did not provoke them; without notice were they slain."42 There is in the Florentine Codex an exquisitely painful, detailed description of the Spaniards' attack on the unarmed warrior dancers at the temple festival, which triggered the Mexica "uprising." The first victim was a drummer: his hands were severed, then his neck. It continues: "of some they slashed open their backs: then their entrails gushed out. Of some they cut their heads to pieces. . . . Some they struck on the shoulder; they split openings; they broke openings in their bodies." And so it goes on. How ought we interpret this? This was not, I think, recorded as a hor .. ror story, or only as a horror story. The account is sufficiently careful as to precise detail and sequence to suggest its construction close after the event, in an attempt to identify the pattern and so to discover the sense in the Spaniards' cuttings and slashings, the Mexica having very precise rules about violent assaults on the body, and the notion of a "preemptive massacre" of warriors not being in their vocabulary.~3 Such baffling actions, much more than any deliberately riddling policy, kept Indians offbalance. To return to that early celebrated bit of mystification by Cortes, the display of the cannon to impress the Mexican envoys on the coast with the killing power of Spanish weapons. The men who carried the tale back reported the thunderous sound, the smoke, the fire, the foul smell-and that the shot had "dissolved" a mountain, and "pulverized" a tree." It is highly doubtful that they took the point of this early display; that this was a demonstration of a weapon of war for use against human flesh. It was not a conceivable weapon for use by warriors. So it

II0

Inga Clendinnen

must have appeared (as it is reported) as a gratuitous assault upon nature: a scrambled lesson indeed. Mexica warriors learned, with experience, not to leap and shout and display but to weave and duck when faced with cannon fire and crossbows, as the shield canoes learned to weave and zigzag to avoid the cannon shot from the brigantines, so that the carnage was less." But they also learned contempt for men who were prepared to kill indiscriminately, combatants and noncombatants alike, and from a secure distance, without putting their own lives in play. About Spanish horses, that other key element in Cortes's mystification program, Indian warriors seem to have felt rather differently. We have clear evidence of swift and effectivewarrior response to the horses, and of a fine experimental attitude to verifying their nature. A small group of Tlaxcalan warriors having their first sight of horses and horsemen managed to kill two horses and to wound three others before the Spaniards got the upper hand." In the next engagement a squad of Indians made a concerted and clearly deliberate attack on a horse, allowing the rider, although badly wounded, to escape, while they killed his mount and carted the body from the field. Bernal Diaz later recorded that the carcass was cut into pieces and distributed through the towns ofTlaxcala, presumably to demonstrate the horse's carnal nature. (They reserved the horseshoes, as he sourly recalled, to offer to their idols, along with "the Flemish hat, and the two letters we had sent them offering peace.":") Indians were in no doubt that horses were animals. But that did not reduce them, as it did for Spaniards, to brute beasts: unwitting, unthinking servants of the lords of creation. Indians had a different understanding of how animals signified. It was no vague aesthetic inclination which led the greatest warrior orders to mimic the eagle and the jaguar in regalia and conduct: those were creatures of power, exemplary of the purest warrior spirit. The eagle, slowly turning close to the sun, then the scream, the stoop, the strike; the jaguar, announcing its presence with the coughing rumble of thunder, erupting from the dappled darkness to make its kill: these provided unmatchable models for human emulation. That horses should appear ready to kill men was unremarkable. The ferocity and courage of these creatures, who raced into the close zone of combat, facing the clubs and swords; who plunged and screamed, whose eyes rolled, whose salivaflew (for the Mexica saliva signified anger) marked them as agents in the battle action. (Remember the charge of the two horses against the two Indian challengers.) In the Mexica lexicon of battle, the horses excelled their masters. They were not equal in value as offerings-captured Spanish

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

III

swords lashed to long poles were typically used against horses to disembowel or hamstring them, but not against their riders, judged too valuable to damage so deeply-but their valor was recognized. When the besieged Mexica won their major victory over Cortes's men on the Tacuba causeway, they displayed the heads of the sacrificed Spaniards on the skull rack in the usual way, and below them they skewered the heads of the four horses taken in the same melee." There is one small moment in which we see these contrary understandings held in counterpoise. During a skirmish in the city some Spanish horsemen emerging from an unsprung ambush collided, a Spaniard falling from his mare. Panicky, the riderless horse "rushed straight at the enemy, who shot at and wounded her with arrows; whereupon, seeing how badly she was being treated, she returned to us," Cortes reported, but "so badly wounded that she died that night." He continued: "Although we were much grieved by her loss, for our lives were dependent on the horses, we were pleased she had not perished at the hands of the enemy, for their joy at having captured her would have exceeded the grief caused by the death of their companions."49 For Cortes the mare was an animal, responding as an animal: disoriented, then fleeing from pain. Her fate had symbolic importance only through her association with the Spaniards. For the Indians the mare breaking out from the knot of Spaniards, rushing directly and alone toward enemy warriors-white-eyed, ferocity incarnate-was accorded the warrior's reception of a flight of arrows. Her reversal,her flight back to her friends, probably signaled a small Indian victory, as her capture and death among enemies would have signaled to the Spaniards, at a more remote level, a small Spanish defeat. That doomed mare wheeling and turning in the desperate margin between different armies and different systems of understanding provides a sufficientlypoignant metaphor for the themes I have been pursuing. Spanish "difference" found its clearest expression in their final strategy for the reduction of the imperial city. Cortes had hoped to intimidate the Mexica sufficiently by his steady reduction of the towns around the lake, by his histrionic acts of violence, and by the exemplary cruelty with which resistance was punished, to bring them to treat." Example-at-adistance in that mosaic of rival cities could have no relevance for the Mexica-if all others quailed, they would not-so the Spaniards resorted, as Diaz put it, to "a new kind of warfare." Siege was the quintessential European strategy: an economical design to exert maximum pressure on whole

II2

Inga Clendinnen

populations without active engagement, to secure control over people and place. If Cortes's own precarious position led him to increase that pressure by military sorties, his crucial weapon was want. For the Mexica, siege was the antithesis of war. They knew of encircling cities to persuade unwilling warriors to come out, and of destroying them, too, when insult required it. They had sought to burn the Spaniards out of their quarters in Tenochtitlan, to force them to fight after their attack on the warrior dancers.51 But the deliberate and systematic weakening of opposition before engagement, and the deliberate implication of noncombatants in the contest, had no part in their experience. As the siege continued, the signs of Mexica contempt multiplied. The warriors continued to seek face-to-facecombat with these most unsatisfactory opponents, who skulked and refused battle, clung together in tight bands behind their cannon, and fled without shame. When the greatest warriors, swept in by canoe, at last had the chance to engage the Spaniards closely, the Spaniards "turned their backs, they fled," with the Mexica in pursuit (Fig. 3.4). They abandoned a cannon in one of their pell-mell flights, positioned with unconscious irony on the gladiatorial stone on which the greatest captured warriors gave their final display of fighting prowess; the Mexica worried and dragged it along to the canal and dropped it into the water." Indian warriors were careful, when they had to kill rather than capture Spaniards in battle, to deny them an honorable warrior's death, dispatching them by beating in the back of their heads, the death reserved for criminals in Tenochtitlan." And the Spaniards captured after the debacle on the Tacuba causeway were stripped of all their battle equipment, their armor, their clothing: only then, when they were naked, and reduced to "slaves," did the Mexica kill them. 54 What does it matter, in the long run, that Mexica warriors admired Spanish horses and despised Spanish warriors? To discover how it mattered we need to look briefly into Indian notions of fate and time. To begin with a comparison of the structure of the Indian and Spanish accounts of the final battles. The Spanish versions present the long struggles along the causeways, the narrow victories, the coups, the strokes of luck, the acts of daring on each side. Through the tracing of an intricate sequence of action we follow the movement of the advantage, first one way, then the other. God is at the Spaniards' shoulders, but only to lend power to their strong right arms, or to tip an already tilting balance. Through selection and sequence of significant events we have the familiar, powerful, cumulative explanation through the narrative form. The Indian accounts are, superficially,similar. There are episodes, and

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

Figure 3.4. Killing at a distance. Florentine Codex, Book of Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana.

12,

Plate

12I.

I I

3

Courtesy

they are offered serially: descriptions of group or individual feats, of contemptible Spanish actions. But these are discrete events, moments to be memorialized, with time no more than the thread on which they are strung: there is no cumulative effect, no significance in sequence. Nor is there any implication that the human actions described bore on outcomes. The fact that defeat was suffered declares it to have been inevitable. In this sense Todorov is right to say that the Indians "interrogated the world" rather than human action. But just as those anomalous events

114

Inga Clendinnen

noted before the Spanish advent could be categorized as "omens" and their portent identified only retrospectively, this "interrogation" was very much an after-the-event diagnosis, not an anterior (and paralyzing) certitude. Events were problematical in their experiencing, and innovation and desperate effort were neither precluded nor inhibited. Altogether too much has been made of the Mexica concern for "day signs," the determining authority of the auguries associated with one's day of birth over the individual's tonalli, or destiny. It is true that in some passages of the Florentine Codex-the only source with the kind of "spread" to make this sort of concept-mapping viable-the individual is presented as quite mastered by his or her "fate." That clarity blurs on broader acquaintance, emerging as part of the characteristic stylistic movement of much of the codex between firm statements of the ideal and the necessary qualifications of actuality. Day signs had about as much determining power as horoscopes do now for the moderate believer.They mattered, but more as intimations or as post-hoc diagnoses (and even then, one suspects, not by the individuals concerned) than as iron determinants of action. 55 However, some few signs were recognized as unequivocal. An example: at a place called Otumba, the Spaniards, limping away from Tenochtitlan after their expulsion, were confronted by a sea of Mexica warriors; a sea which evaporated when Cortes and his horsemen drove through to strike down the battle leader and to seize his fallen banner. The Spanish accounts identify the striking down of the commander as decisive, but while the fall of a leader was ominous (and attack on a leader not actively engaged in combat disreputable) it was the taking of the banner which signified. Our initial temptation is to elide this with the familiar emotional attachment of a body of fighting men to its colors: to recall the desperate struggles over shreds of silk at Waterloo; the dour passion of a Roman legion in pursuit of its lost Eagle and honor." There might have been some of this in the Indian case. But the taking of a banner was to Indians less a blow to collective pride than a statement: a sign that the battle was to go, indeed had gone, against them. 57 By the second phase of the conquest, while Spanish banner carriers remained special targets, being subjected to such ferocious attack that "a new one was needed every day," the Mexica had come to pay less heed to signs, because they had discovered that Spaniards ignored them. The essential mutuality was lacking.58 In the course of the causeway victory a major Spanish banner had been taken: "the warriors from Tlatelolco captured it in the place known today as San Martin." But while the warrior who had taken the banner was carefullymemorialized, "they were scornful

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

115

Figure 3.5. Attack on the main temple precinct. Lienzo de Tlaxcala, Plate 46. Courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

of their prize and considered it of little importance." Sahagun's informants flatly record that the Spaniards "just kept on fighting." 59 Unresponsive to signs of defeat, Spaniards were equally careless of signs of victory. When Spaniards fired the temple in Tlatelolco the "common people began to wail, expecting the looting to begin" (Fig. 3.5). Warriors had no such expectation. They knew the fighting would go on: these enemies were as blind to signs as they were deaf to decency. When a Spanish contingent penetrated the marketplace ofTlatelolco, where the Mexica had taken their last refuge, they managed to fight their way to the top of the main pyramid, to set the shrines on fire and to plant their banners there before they were forced to withdraw. The next day from his own encampment Cortes was puzzled to see the fires left unquenched, the banners still in place. The Mexica would respect the signs and leave them to stand, even

II

6

Inga Clendinnen

if the barbarians did not, even if they had lost their efficacy, even if the rules of war were in abeyance. 60 John Keegan has characterized battles as "essentially a moral conflict [requiring] a mutual and sustained act of will between two contending parties, and, if it is to result in a decision, the moral collapse of one of them."?' Paradoxically, that mutuality is most essential at the point of disengagement. To "surrender," to acquiesce in defeat and concede victory, is a complex business, at once a redefinition of self and one's range of effective action, and a redefinition of one's relationship with the erstwhile enemy. Those redefinitions have somehow to be acknowledged by the opponent. Where the indicators which by marking defeat allow "moral collapse" and the redefinitions to occur are not recognized or acknowledged, neither victory nor defeat is possible, and we approach a sinister zone in which there can be no resolution save death. 62 That, I think, came to be the case in Mexico. The Mexicans on good evidence had concluded their opponents were cowardly opportunists impossible to trust. The Spaniards had also unwittingly denied them the way to acquiesce in their own defeat." So the Mexica, lacking alternatives, continued to resist. The chronicles record the stories of heroic deeds; of warriors scattering the Spaniards before them, of the great victory over Cortes's troop, with terrified Spaniards reeling "like drunken men," and fifty-three taken for sacrifice." Spanish accounts tell us that the victory which had given so many captives to the Mexican war god was taken at the time to indicate the likelihood of a final Mexica victory, hopefully prophesied by the priests as coming within eight days. (The Indian records do not waste time on false inferences, misunderstood omens.) Cortes's allies, respectful of signs, accordingly removed themselves for the duration. But the days passed, the decisive victory did not come, and the macabre dance continued. 65 And all the while, as individual warriors found their individual glory, the city was dying: starving, thirsting, choking on its own dead. This slow strangling is referred to as if quite separate from the battle, as in the Mexican mind it presumably was. Another brief glory, when eagle and ocelot warriors, men from the two highest military orders, were silently poled in disguised canoes to where they could leap among looting native allies, spreading lethal panic among them. But still the remorseless pressure: "they indeed wound all around us, they were wrapped around us, no one could go anywhere .... Indeed many died in the press."> So the Mexicans made their end-game play. Here the augury component, always present in combat, is manifest. Quautemoc, who had replaced

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

I

17

the dead Cuitlahuac as Great Speaker, and his leading advisers selected a seasoned warrior, clad him in the array of Quetzal Owl, the combat regalia of Ahuitzotl, the ruler before the despised Moctezuma, and armed him with the flint-tipped darts of Huitzilopochtli; so he became, as they said, "one of the number of the Mexicans' rulers." He was sent forth to cast his darts against the enemy: should the darts twice strike their mark, the Mexica would prevail. Magnificent in his spreading quetzal plumes, with his four attendants, Quetzal Owl entered the battle." For a time they could follow his movements among the enemy, reclaiming stolen gold and quetzal plumes, taking three captives, or so they thought. Then he dropped from a terrace, and out of sight. The Spaniards record nothing of this exemplary combat. After that ambiguous sign, another day passed with no action." On the next evening a great "bloodstone," a blazing coal of light, flared through the heavens, to whirl around the devastated city, then to vanish in the middle of the lake. No Spaniards saw the comet of fire which marked the end of imperial Tenochtitlan. Perhaps no Indian saw it either. But they knew great events must be attended by signs, and that there must have been a sign. In the morning Quautemoc, having taken council with his lords, abandoned Tenochtitlan. He was captured in the course of his escape, to be brought before Cortes. Only then did the Mexicans leave their ruined city (Fig. 3.6).69 So the Mexica submitted to their fate, when that fate was manifest. A certain arrangement of things had been declared terminated: the period of Mexica domination and the primacy ofTenochtitlan was over. A section of the Anales de Tlatelolco is often cited to demonstrate the completeness of the obliteration of a way of life and a way of thought. It runs: Broken spears lie in the roads; we have torn our hair in our grief. The houses are roofless now, and their walls are red with blood. Worms are swarming in the streets and plazas, and the walls are splattered with gore. The water has turned red, as if it were dyed, and when we drink it, it has the taste of brine. We have pounded our hands in despair against the adobe walls, for our inheritance, our city, is lost and dead. The shields of our warriors were its defence, but they could not save it."

I

18

Inga Clendinnen

Figure 3.6. The surrender of Quauternoc, Lienzo de Tlaxcala, Plate 48. Courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

And so it continues. But what is notable here (apart from the poetic power) is that the "lament" was a traditional form, maintaining itself after the defeat, and so locating that defeat and rendering it intelligible byassaying it in the traditional mode. If the Mexican vision of empire was finished, the people, and their sense of distinctiveness as a people, were not. The great idols in the temples were somehow smuggled out of the city by their traditional custodians before its fall, and sent towards Tula: a retracing of their earlier route. A cyclicalview of time has its comforts. And if the "Quetzalcoatl returned" story as presented in the Florentine Codex is indeed a post-conquest imposition, as is likely, and if indeed it does move away from traditional native understandings of human action in the worldMoctezuma's conduct described in order to explain the outcome of defeat, not merely to memorialize his shame-its fabrication points to an interest

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

II

9

in the construction of a viable and satisfying public history for the conquered, an emollient myth, generated in part from within the European epistemological system to explain the catastrophe of Mexica defeat.

Consequences There is something appealing to our sense of irony in the notion that the Spaniards' heroic deeds, as they saw them, were judged shameful by the Mexica warriors. But attitudes of losers have little historical resonance. Attitudes of victors do. Here I want to pursue an impression. Anyone who has worked on the history of Mexico- I suspect the case is the same for much of Latin America, but I cannot speak for that-is painfully impressed by the apparent incorrigibility of the division between the aboriginal inhabitants and the incomers, despite .the domestic proximity of their lives, and by the chronic durability, whatever the form of government, whatever its public rhetoric, of systemic social injustice grounded in that division. In Mexico I am persuaded the terms of the relationship between the incoming and the indigenous peoples were set very early. A line of reforming sixteenth-century missionaries and upright judges were baffled as much as outraged by what they saw as the wantonness of Spanish maltreatment of Indians; cruelties indulged in face of self-interest. Spaniards had been notoriously brutal in the Caribbean islands, where the indigenes were at too simple a levelof social organization to survive Spanish endeavors to exploit them, and in Tierra Firme. Yet in their first encounters with the peoples of Mexico they declared themselves profoundly impressed. Cortes's co-venture with the Tlaxcalansseems to have involved genuine cooperation, a reasonably developed notion of mutuality, and (not to be sentimental) some affection between individuals." Then something happened, a crucial break of sympathy. It is always difficult to argue that things could have been other than they turn out to be, especially in the political maelstrom of post-conquest Mexico. But I have a sense of Cortes relinquishing both his control over the shaping of Spanish-Indian relations and his naturally conservationist policies-a conservationism based in pragmatism rather than humanity, but effective for all that-earlier and more easily than his previous conduct would have us expect. I think that shift had to do with that obstinate and, to Spanish eyes, profoundly "irrational," refusal or incapacity to submit. Cortes was sensitive to the physical beauty and social complexity of

120

Inga Clendinnen

the great city ofTenochtitlan. It was the dream of the city which had fired his ambition and provided the focus for all his actions. We must remember that Tenochtitlan was a marvel, eclipsing all other cities in Mesoamerica in size, elegance, order, and magnificence of spectacle. Cortes had contrived the complex, difficult strategy of the blockade and pursued the mammoth task of implementing it, to preserve the city in its physical and social structures by demonstrating the futility of resistance. Then he watched the slow struggle back and forth along the causeways, as the defenders, careless of their own lives, took back by night what had been so painfully won by day. So he moved his men on to the causeways, into physical misery and constant danger. Then he undertook the systematic destruction of the structures along the causeways to secure the yards won, a perilous prolongation of a task already long enough." So, with patience, accessto the city was gained, and the noose of famine tightened. From that point victory was in Spanish (and our) terms inevitable. Yet still the resistance continued, taking advantage of every corner and rooftop. So the work of demolition went on. At last, from the top of a great pyramid, Cortes could see that the Spaniards had won seven-eighths of what had once been the city, with the survivors crammed into a corner where the houses were built out over the water. Starvation was so extreme that even roots and bark had been gnawed, with the survivors tottering shadows, but shadows who still resisted." Cortes's frustration, forced to destroy the city he had so much wanted to capture intact, is manifest, as is his bewilderment at the tenacity of so futile a resistance: As we had entered the city from our camp two or three days in succession, besides the three or four previous attacks, and had always been victorious, killing with crossbows, harquebus and field gun an infinite number of the enemy, we each day expected to see them sue for peace, which we desired as much as our own salvation; but nothing we could do could induce them to it . . . we could not but be saddened by their determination to die."

He had no stomach to attack again. Instead he made a final resort to terror. Not to the terror of mass killings: that weapon had long lost its efficacy.He constructed a war engine, an intimidatory piece of European technology: the marvelous catapult. It was a matter of some labor over three or four days, of lime and stone and wood, then the great cords, and the stones big as demijohns. It was aimed, as a native account bleakly recorded, to "stone the common folk." It failed to work, the stone dribbling feebly from the sling, so still the labor of forcing surrender remained."

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

121

Four days of patient waiting, four days further into starvation, and the Spaniards entered the city again. Again they encountered ghostly figures, of women and gaunt children, and saw the warriors still stationed on the remaining rooftops, but silent now, and unarmed, close-wrapped in their cloaks. And still the fruitless pretense at negotiation, the dumb, obdurate resistance. Cortes attacked, killing "more than twelve thousand," as he estimated. Another meeting with some of the lords, and again they refused any terms save a swift death. Cortes exhausted his famous eloquence: "I said many things to persuade them to surrender but all to no avail, although we showed them more signs of peace than have ever been shown to a vanquished people for we, by the grace of our Lord, were now the victors."76He released a captured noble, charging him to urge surrender: the only response was a sudden, desperate attack, and more Indians dead. He had a platform set up in the market square ofTlatelolco, ready for the ceremony of submission, with food prepared for the feast which should mark such a moment: still he clung to the European fiction of two rulers meeting in shared understanding for the transference of an empire. There was no response. Two days more, and Cortes unleashed the allies. There followed a massacre, of men who no longer had arrows, javelins, or stones; of women and children stumbling and falling on the bodies of their own dead. Cortes thought forty thousand might have died or been taken on that day. The next day he had three heavy guns taken into the city. As he explained to his distant king, the enemy, being now "so massed together that they had no room to turn around, might crush us as we attacked, without actually fighting. I wished, therefore, to do them some harm with the guns, and so induce them to come out to meet us." 77He had also posted the brigantines to penetrate between the houses to the interior lake where the last of the Mexican canoes were clustered. With the firing of the guns the final action began. The city was now a stinking desolation; of heaped and rotting bodies; of starving men, women, and children crawling among them, struggling in the water. Quautemoc was taken in his canoe, and at last brought before Cortes to make his request for death, and the survivors began to file out, these once-immaculate people "so thin, sallow, dirty and stinking that it was pitiful to see them." 78 Cortes had invoked one pragmatic reason for holding his hand in the taking of Tenochtitlan: if the Spaniards attempted to storm the city the Mexica would throw all their riches into the water, or would be plundered

122

Inga Clendinnen

by the allies. His perturbation went, I think, very much deeper. His earlier battle narratives exemplify those splendid Caesarian simplicities identified by John Keegan; disjunctive movement, uniformity of behavior, simplified characterization, and simplified motivation." That style of high control, of magisterial grasp, falters when he must justify his own defeat on the causeway, which cost so many Spanish lives. It then recovers itself briefly, to fracture, finally and permanently, for the last stages of his account of the battle for Tenochtitlan. The soldierly narrative loses its fine onward drive as he deploys more and more detail to demonstrate the purposefulness of his own action, and as he frets more and more over fathoming native mood and intentions. 80 Cortes had proceeded in the world by treating all men, Indians and Spaniards alike, as manipulable: that sturdy denial of the problem of otherness, usually so profitable, had here been proved bankrupt. He had also been forced into parodying his earlier, once successful, strategies. His use of European equipment to terrify had produced the elaborate threat of the catapult, then its farcical failure. "Standard" battle procedures-terrorraiding of sleeping villages, exemplary massacres-took on an unfamiliar .aspect when the end those means were designed to effect proved phantasmal; when killing did not lead to panic and pleas for terms, but a silent pressing on to death. Even the matter of firing a cannon must have taken on a new significance: to use cannon to clear a contended street or cause-

way or to disperse massed warriors was one thing; to use cannon to break up a huddled mass of exhausted human misery was very much another. It is possible that as he ran through his degraded routine of stratagems in those last days, Cortes was brought to glimpse something of the Indian view of the nature and quality of the Spanish warrior. His privilege as victor was to survey the surreal devastation of the city which had been the glittering prize and magnificent justification for his insubordination, and for the desperate struggles and sufferings of the last two years, now reduced by perverse, obdurate resistance to befouled rubble, its once-magnificent lords, its whole splendid hierarchy, to undifferentiated human wreckage. That resistance had been at once "irrational," yet chillingly deliberate.81 He had seen, too, the phobic cruelty of the "allies," most especially the Tlaxcalans." He had known that cruelty before, and had used and profited from it. But on that last day of killing they had killed and killed amid a wailing of women and children so terrible "that there was not one man amongst us whose heart did not bleed at the sound."

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

123

Writing later of that day and what he saw then, Cortes was brought to make one of his very rare general statements: "no race, however savage, has ever practiced such fierce and unnatural cruelty as the natives of these parts."83"Unnatural" cruelty. Against nature: a heavily freighted term in early sixteenth-century Spain. He had described Moctezuma as a "barbarian lord" in his earlier letter, but he had done so in the course of an elaborate description of the Mexica city and its complex workings which demonstrated the Mexica ruler was a "barbarian" of a most rare and civilized kind. I think his view was changed by the experience of the siege. "Fierce and unnatural cruelty," an unnatural indifference to suffering, an unnatural indifference to death: conduct in violation of "nature." A terrifying, terminal demonstration of "otherness," and its practical and cognitive unman ageability. Todorov has called Cortes a master in human communication. Here the master had found his limits.84 In what was to follow, the Spaniards expressed their own cruelties. There was a phobic edge in some of the things done, especially against those men most obviously the custodians of the indigenous culture." I do not suggest that any special explanation is required for Spanish or any other conquerors' brutalities. All I would claim at the end is that in the long and terrible conversation of war, despite the apparent mutual intelligibility of move and countermove, as in the trap and ambush game built around the brigantines, that final nontranslatability of the vocabulary of battle and its modes of termination divided Spaniards from Indians in new and decisive ways. If for Indian warriors the lesson that Spaniards were barbarians was learned early,for Spaniards, and for Cortes, that lesson was learned most deeply only in the final stages, where the Indians revealed themselves as unamenable to "natural" reason, and so unamenable to the routines of management of one's fellow men. Once that sense of unassuageable otherness has been established, the outlook is bleak indeed. lowe particular thanks to my colleague at the Institute for Advanced Study, William Taylor, whose acute reading of an earlier draft did much to clarify my thinking.

Notes I. I call the people of the imperial city ofTenochtitlan-Tlatelolco, commonly known as the "Aztecs," the "Mexica," in part because that is what they called themselves, in part to free them from the freight that "Aztec" has come to bear. (I shall

124

Inga Clendinnen

distinguish between "Tenocha" and the "Tlatelolca" only as necessary.) Life and language being imperfect, I shall call the peoples of Central Mexico "Indians," which is a purely European term. The Nahuatl sounds of the name of the Mexica ruler known as "Montezuma" are probably best facsimilated by "Motecuhwma," but that is to carry linguistic piety too far: I shall name him "Moctezuma." 2. Anthony Pagden notes several editions of the letters in five languages between 1522 and 1525.Anthony Pagden, The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology (Cambridge, 1982), 58. He also comments on the use made of the conquest as early as the 1540S by Juan Gines de Sepulveda, the emperor's chaplain and official chronicler, in his "Dcmocrates secundus sive de justis causis belli apud Indos," which Pagden describes as "the most virulent and uncompromising argument for the inferiority of the American Indian ever written." Sepulveda has his Democrates recite "the history of the fall of Mexico' contrasting a noble, valiant Cortes with a timorous, cowardly Montezuma, whose people by their iniquitous desertion of their natural leader demonstrated clearly their indifference to the good of the commonwealth." Pagden., The Fall of Natural Man, 109, 117. For Prescott, see the fine study by David Levin, History as Romantic Art (New York, 1963). 3. Tzvetan Todorov, The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other, tr. Richard Howard (New York, 1984; first published in Paris, 1982), passim. For the quotations, 69-70, 87-89. For an illuminating discussion of very much earlier European views of the definitive importance of a system of writing., see Pagden, The Fall of Natural Man, chapters 6 and 7. For the central importance of language and so communication in the definition of the truly human, see 20-22. 4. Hernan Cortes: Letters from Mexico, tr. and ed. Anthony Pagden, with an introduction by J. H. Elliott (New Haven and London, 1986), Second Letter, 88. Hereafter cited as Pagden. 5. Pagden, Second Letter, 112- 13, 119, 127. 6. It is possible, with the Pagden translation and commentary on the Cortes Letters once again available, that the "god-ruler returned" story as a factor in the conquest might lose its luster. Possible, but unlikely, those gullible natives paralyzed by their own preposterous imaginings being altogether too attractive to Western sensibilities. 7. On self-promotion: Diaz claims the four Spanish heads tossed into Cortes's camp after the great Mexica victory on the causeway, in a Mexica variant of psychological warfare, were named as belonging to Alvarado, Sandoval, another Spaniard-and Bernal Diaz. B. Diaz del Castillo, Historiaverdadera,ed. J. Ramirez Cabanas (Mexico., 1966), eLII. He reports with gratification that tears sprang to Cortes's eyes. 8. Diaz, Historia,XL; XLV. 9. B. de Sahagun, The Florentine Codex, tr. A. J. o. Anderson et al. (Santa Fe, 1950-82)., Introductory Vol., 87: Diaz, Historia, XXXII; XXI; XXXIV. 10. Initially, Moctezuma is represented as spokesman for the ruling group, who share his alarm, but he is rapidly detached from the other lords, finally being presented as a cowardly and ineffectual individual. For the confusions attending the return of the self-exiled Quetzalcoatl-Topiltzin, legendary ruler of Tollan, see

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

125

H. B. Nicholson, "Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl of Tollan: A Problem in Mesoamerican Ethnohistory," Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1957. II. FlorentineCodex)12: 16: 45; 17- 18; 48-49. 12. "This I saw in a painting that belonged to an ancient chieftain from the province ofTexcoco. Moctezuma was depicted in irons, wrapped in a mantle and carried on the shoulders of his chieftains." Diego Duran, Historia de lasIndias de Nueva Espanay islasde Tierra Firma) ed. Angel Maria Garibay, 2 vols. (Mexico, 1987), LXXIV, 541-42. 13. Todorov, Conquest)70. 14. Diaz, Historia, cap. XXXVIII. 15. Diaz, Historia, cap. XXXIX. For the list of gifts, see Pagden, First Letter, 45. Gomara mentions "several books of painted figures which the Mexicans use for writing, folded like kerchiefs." If we knew their contents, much of the mystery could be dissipated. Francisco L6pez de G6mara, Istoria dela ConquistadeMexico) cap. 39, p. 86. Moctezuma's earliest prestations perhaps carried a "please identify" message through the inclusion of the regalias of three deities: two of Quetzalcoatl, one ofTezcatlipoca, and Tlaloc. Eduard Seler takes the costumes to be regalias for the four aspects of Quetzalcoatl, or more correctly the four deities dominant in the four quarters of the heavens-Xuitecutli (Fire), Tlaloc (Rain), Tezcatlipoca, and Quetzalcoatl as Wind God, the four being thought of, in his view, as embodiments of QuetzalcoatI. Seler, Commentaryon VaticanusB. (London, 1902), 130. As I have indicated elsewhere, I think such firm statements on the hierarchy (and the distinctiveness) of sacred "persons" to be misplaced. 16. Pagden, Second Letter, 50. 17. Pagden, Second Letter, 54. See also the reception offered by "Sienchimalen," ibid. 18. Duran, Historia, 2, XLIII. FlorentineCodex)12: 15:41. 19. Duran, Historia,2, LXXIII. Certainly the Lienzo de Tlaxcala shows them entering aswarriors, but that is aswe would expect in that self-glorifying document. 20. For a more precise account of the Yucatec Maya, see Inga Clendinnen, Ambivalent Conquests(Cambridge, 1987). 21. Diaz, Historia,XCV. 22. J. H. Elliott, New YorkReviewofBooks)19 July 1984. 23. "Reported" is putting it rather too high: here we have to take the "captain's speech" for the literary convention it is. But it is, at best, close to what Cortes claims he said: at worst, the gist of what Diaz thought a man like Cortes ought to have said on such an occasion. Pagden, Second Letter, 63; Diaz, Historia, LXI for "Roman captains" comparison. 24-. For a contrary view of the whole conquest phenomenon as very much more pragmatic and routinized, see James Lockhart, TheMen ofCajamarca (Austin and London, 1972). On the model of Mexico: "[the conquest of] Mexico had no major impact on Peru merely by virtue of some years' precedence . . . Pizarro was certainly not thinking of Cortes and Moctezuma when he seized Atahualpa; he had been capturing caciques[chiefs] in Tierra Firme long before Mexico was heard of." James Lockhart and Stuart B. Schwartz, Early Latin America (Cambridge, 1983), 84.

126

Inga Clendinnen

25. Pagden, Second Letter, 60-62. 26. The Mexica tax gatherers themselves were unimpressed by the Spaniards and all their doings, if we can believe Diaz's chagrined account of their superb progress through the Cempoallan town, magnificently indifferent to the gazing Spaniards. Dfaz, Historia, XLVI, XLVII. 27. Diaz, Historia, LI. 28. Diaz, Historia,XXV,XXVI, LII. 29. Cortes's shifting understanding of his obligations to his God is a marvelously rich theme, but too complex to be explored here. 30. Diaz, Historia, LXXXVIII. 31. Pagden, Second Letter, II2; Diaz, Historia, XCV. 32. Sahagun's informants exaggerate the physical contact, "recalling" Moctezuma as being prodded and pawed by any and all of the newcomers, although the disgrace of the unabashed glance was as keenly noted: "they caressed Moctezuma with their hands"; they "looked at him; they each looked at him thoroughly. They were continually active on their feet; they continually dismounted in order to look at him." FlorentineCodex,12:16:4; 12:17:44-46. Diaz, Historia,LXXXVIII. 33. Pagden, Second Letter, 91. 34. It is only one of many painful paradoxes that Cortes's decision to take Moctezuma hostage, a decision based on a mistaken and almost certainly inflated notion of Moctezuma's authority, nonetheless seriously destabilized political relations within the city and within the Mexica-allied valley towns, as Moctezuma's diminishing authority was pressed to new purposes by Spanish misreadings. Cortes reports that as he made his first probes into Tenochtitlan on his second entrada, the defenders would ironically pretend to open a way for him, "saying, 'Come in, come in and enjoy yourselves!' or, at other times, 'Do you think there is now another Mutezuma to do what you wish?'" Pagden, Third Letter, 188. 35. Duran, Historia, 2, XXXIV. 36. Cf. the deliberate humiliation of the Tlatelolcan warriors, discovered hiding in the rushes after the Mexica victory of 1474, and ordered to quack. "Even today," Duran noted, decades after the debacle, "the Tlatelolca are called 'quackers' and imitators of waterfowl. They are much offended by this name and when they fight the name is always recalled." Duran, Historia, 2, XXXIV. 37. Diaz, Historia, CLIII; Duran, Historia, 2, LXXVII, 315. 38. Pagden, Third Letter, 230. 39. For example, the attack on Cortes in the Xochimilco battle, and the desperate rescue, Cortes sustaining a "bad wound in the head." Diaz, Historia, CXLV,294. 40. Muskets were valued equally with crossbows, a musketeer being allocated the same share of the spoils as a crossbowman, yet, oddly, muskets are mentioned less in Indian accounts, perhaps because the ball could not be followed in flight, while crossbow bolts whirred and sang as they came. Florentine Codex, 12:22: 62. For a succinct and accessible account of sixteenth-century cannon, in their enormous variety, see Pagden, Letters, 507-508. Most of the small guns used in America could fire a ball of twenty pounds over some four hundred meters; n. 59. For a more extended account, Alberto Mario Salas, LasArmas de LaConquista (Buenos Aires, 1950).

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

127

41. Duran, Historia, 2, LXXII. 42. "[The Spaniards] vented their wrath upon them, they took their pleasure with them." FlorentineCodex, 12: 25: 73. 43. FlorentineCodex)12: 20: 55. It appears from the funerary rites accorded the

fragmented corpses of the warrior dancers that the Mexica somehow decided that the victims had found death in a mode appropriate to warriors, though presumably as offerings rather than combatants. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48.

FlorentineCodex)12: 7: 19. FlorentineCodex)12: 30: 86.

Pagden, Second Letter, 58. Diaz, Historia) LXIII. Note also the offering of the entire skins of five horses, "sewn up and as well tanned as anywhere in the world," in Texcoco. These horses had been taken in a situation where they were riderless at the moment of combat. Pagden, Third Letter, 184. 49. Pagden, Third Letter, 252. 50. Pagden, Third Letter, 192. 51. Diaz recalls them yelling, whistling, and calling the Spaniards "rogues and cowards who did not dare to meet them through a day's battle, and retreated before them." Diaz, Historia, CXXVI. 52. FlorentineCodex)12: 31: 89. 53. For example, FlorentineCodex)12: 35: 87. 54· FlorentineCodex)12: 33: 96; 12: 34: 99· 55. Cf. Todorov: "To know someone's birthday is to know his fate," Conquest) 64 . .56. John Keegan, The FaceofBattle (New York, 1977), 184-86. 57. Diaz, Historia, CLV. 58. Diaz, H istoria,CLI. 59. Miguel Leon-Portilla, The Broken Spears) 107. The captor was the TlapanecatlHecatzin-see FlorentineCodex)12: 35: 103, n. 2. For an earlier exploit of the Otomi warrior, see ibid., 101. 60. Spanish attitudes to fate and signs are scanted here. They were, of course,

sensitive to signs in their own repertoire, as in their determination to keep flaunting their banner whatever the cost in wounds or worse. In his second letter Cortes represents his men as vulnerable to demoralization through "omens" (as when five horses mysteriously fell on a night expedition, and had to be returned to camp), while he was not: "I continued on my way secure in the belief that God is more powerful than Nature." Pagden, Second Letter, 62-63. Cf. the very different attitude of waiting on God's will, Pagden, Fifth Letter, 422-24. Cortes's vigorous challenge to the religious observances of even friendly natives reflect something that comes close to a contractual notion: God would aid his Spaniards only if they were attentive to His honor. (The installed Christian images also became combatants in the action: war prosecuted by other means.) But the Spaniards appear to be best protected, even from the worst individual and group disasters, by the ample space for misfortune in Christian cosmology: while God is securely in His heaven, all manner of things can be wrong in His world. How Cortes accommodated himself to the continued cannibalism of his Tlaxcalan "friends," and to what I take to

128

Inga Clendinnen

be his lies regarding the toppling of the Mexica idols and their replacement with Christian images, I do not know. 61. John Keegan, The FaceofBattle) 296. 62. As in the interspecific mayhem described by Konrad Lorenz, where signs of submission are not "understood" in the lethal battle between the turkey and the peacock. Konrad Z. Lorenz, King Solomon'sRing (London, 1961), 194-95. 63. Cortes was certainly desperate to treat with Quautemoc in the last days of the siege, but Diaz reports that the ruler would not show himself, despite all reassurances, because he feared he would be killed by guns or crossbows, Cortes having behaved too dishonorably to be trusted. Diaz, Historia,CLV, 338. 64. FlorentineCodex)12: 35: 104. 65. Diaz, Historia, CLIII; Pagden, Third Letter, 242. Cortes, for his part, deletes any reference to the withdrawal of his Indian "vassals," the admission of such a withdrawal casting altogether too much light on the nature of their commitment to the Spanish cause, and on his authority over them. 66. FlorentineCodex)12: 38: 117. 67. Here we have to remember the power of the sacred garment among Amerindian societies, to protect, and to render formidable. These garments were not only records of personal war biographies, but "memory garments," in Patricia Anawalt's happy phrase, referring to history, and perhaps mimicking a particular tribal group, like the Huasteca. In the case of Quetzal Owl the sacred power invoked was of the warrior Huitzilopochtli himself. How real this kind of power could be is indicated by the fact that some Plains Indians who possess highly efficient shields-a quarter-inch thickness of shrunken rawhide, tough enough to turn a glancing bullet-often chose to ride into battle carrying only the sacred painted shield cover, as protection enough. And so it often proved to be, so great was the awe roused by these death-singers-save, of course, against the U.S. Cavalry. 68. FlorentineCodex)12: 38 : 118. 69 . FlorentineCodex)12: 40 : 123. 70. I offer Leon-Portilla's translation as the version most likelyto be familiar. Miguel Leon-Portilla, The BrokenSpears(Boston, 1962), 137-38. Cf. Leon-Portilla, Pre-ColumbianLiteraturesofMexico (Norman, Oklahoma, 1969), 150-51, and Gordon Brotherston and Ed Dorn, Image oftheNew World(London, 1979), 34-35. For other songs in traditional form to do with the conquest, see John Bierhorst, CantaresMexicanos(Stanford, 1985), esp. 13, pp. 151-53; 60, p. 279 (obscurely); and especially 66, pp. 319-23; 68, for its early stanzas, pp. 327-41; 91, pp. 419-25. 71. It also seems to have involved Cortes in abetting cannibalism: he notes that after a successful ambush led by the Spanish cavalry in the main square of the city "more than five thousand of their bravest and most notable men were lost. That night our alliesdined sumptuously, for all those they had killed were sliced up and eaten." Pagden, Third Letter, 251. He had earlier told the king of his allies' jeering at the Mexica, "showing them their countrymen cut to pieces, saying they would dine off them that night and breakfast off them the following morning, which in fact they did." Pagden, Third Letter, 223. Cortes and cannibalism is another major theme neglected. 72. The labor of filling in only one gap cost four days' miserable labor and six Spanish lives. Diaz, Histona, CLI.

Cortes, Signs, and the Conquest of Mexico

129

73. Pagden, Third Letter, 256. 74-. Pagden, Third Letter, 232-33. 75. Pagden, Third Letter, 257; Diaz, Histona, CLV; Florentine Codex, 12: 38: 113· 76. Pagden, Third Letter, 258. 77. Pagden, Third Letter, 262. 78. Diaz, Historia, CLVI. 79. John Keegan, The FaceofBattle, 65-66. Which is not to claim any direct

classicalinfluence: see Pagden, Letters, xlvii, and J. H. Elliott, "The Mental World of Hernan Cortes," TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSociety,Fifth Series, 17, 1967, 4-1- 58, for Cortes's slight acquaintance with classicalauthors. 80. For the control: "While the aguacil-mayor was at Matalcingo, the people of [Tenochtitlan] decided to attack Alvarado's camp by night, and struck shortly before dawn. When 'the sentries on foot and on horseback heard them they shouted, 'to arms!' Those who were in that place flung themselves upon the enemy, who leapt into the water as soon as they saw the horsemen. . .. Fearing our men might be defeated I ordered my own company to arm themselves and march into the city to weaken the offensive against Alvarado"-and so on. Pagden, Third Letter, 24-7. For the dislocation: "When we came within sight of the enemy we did not attack but marched through the city thinking that at any moment they would come out to meet us [to surrender]. And to induce it I galloped up to a very strong barricade which they had set up and called out to certain chieftains who were behind and whom I knew, that as they saw how lost they were and knew that if 1 so desired within an hour not one of them would remain alive why did not Guatrnucin [Quautemoc] their lord, come and speak with me.... I then used other arguments which moved them to tears, and weeping they replied they well knew their error and their fate, and would go and speak to their lord . . . they went, and returned after a while and told me their lord had not come because it was late, but that he would come on the following day at noon to the marketplace; and so we returned to our camp. . .. On the following day we went to the city and 1 warned my men to be on the alert lest the enemy betray us and we be taken unawares," and so to more worried guesses and second-guesses. Pagden, Third Letter, 259-60. 81. While Cortes could assert that "I well knew it was only the lord of the city and three or four others of the principal persons who had determined not to surrender; the rest wished only to see themselves out of this pass dead or alive," Mexica actions made all too clear their "evil intention, which was for every one of them to perish." Pagden, Third Letter, 258-59. Throughout the Spanish accounts runs a thread of wonder at the obedience of these people in extremis, coupled with their desperate self-motivated courage. For the allies' killings and Cortes's response, pp. 261- 62. 82. The Tlaxcalans seem to have regarded themselves as equal, or perhaps senior, co-venturers in the conquest. They refused to participate in any ventures (like the sortie against Narvaez) not in their direct interest; they withdrew at will, taking their loot with them; they required payment for aid given the Spaniards after the expulsion from Tenochtitlan, after discussing and dismissing the utility of killing them. Dfaz, Historia,XCVIII. Their self-representation as faithful friends and will-

130

Inga Clendinnen

ing servants of the Spaniards (as in the Lienzo de Tlaxcala picturings) came a generation and more after the conquest, in the pursuit of privileges. 83. Pagden, Third Letter, 262. 84. Those limits were to be drawn more narrowly through the shaking experience of the Honduran expedition. The Cortes who early in the Mexican campaign could dismiss "omens" in the confidence that "God is more powerful than Nature" learned in Honduras how helpless men are when Nature, not men, opposes them, and where God seems far away.There he learned that God is bound by no contract, and that he, like all men, must wait upon His will. The Fifth Letter reads like a mournful antiphon to the sanguine assurance of Cortes's early conquest accounts. 8s.Anales deTlatelolco:UnosAnalesHistoricosdelaNacumMexicana,prepared by Heinrich Berlin (Mexico, 1948), 371-89, pp. 74-76.

Donald R. [(eUey 4-. "Second Nature": The Idea of

Custom in European Law, Society, and Culture For use almost can change the stamp of nature. }{a~le~

III, iv, 167

Altera Natura "Custom is second nature" (consuetudoaltera natura). 1 This has been a commonplace, though a debatable commonplace, at least since Aristotle. Primary Nature has been worshiped in many ways-has been matrified as well as deified-but Custom has enjoyed no such conceptual respect. While there have been countless historical and philosophical discussions of the "idea of nature," no serious effort has been made, so far as I know, to study the "idea of custom" in a comprehensive and critical fashion-nothing comparable, say, to R. G. Collingwood's Idea of Nature or to Robert Lenoble's Idee deLanature? Yet as the virtual twin, or shadow, of nature, the idea of custom has run through the length and breadth, the height and depth, of Western thought and culture. The contrast between nature and custom is evident in Western thought and linguistic usage going back to the pre-Socratics.' The story begins most explicitly with the crucial distinction between nature (physis)and law (nomos)in the sense of man-made rules), a duality that also invaded the fields of language, art, literature, and especially law."Aristotle was the first to formulate the distinction between a primary and a second nature in philosophical terms. In his essay on memory, custom (ethos) seems to approach or take the place of nature, just as recalled experiences are gathered into general thoughts." An analogous movement from the particular to the general can also be seen in the Rhetoric? Here, defining pleasure as a movement of the soul to a natural state, Aristotle remarks that "that which has become habitual becomes as it were natural; for the distance between 'often' [pollakis]and 'always' [awn] is not great, and nature belongs to the

132

Donald R. Kelley

idea of 'always,' custom to that of 'often.'" From the beginning the notion that repetition over time establishes a permanent pattern has been essential to the idea of custom. "Custom" played a prominent role in ancient Roman rhetoric.' The term consuetudowas employed by both Cicero and Quintilian in the sense of a norm of the speech community as well as a form of human law.8 Cicero contrasted everyday,customary life ( vitaeconsuetudo)with the philosophical idealizations of Plato's Republic.These attitudes were preserved in the medieval trivium and various ways expanded by Renaissance humanists. Following the lead of Quintilian, Lorenzo Valla insisted on the primacy of custom (consuetudo)usus)or consensus)in language and denounced the technical jargon of scholasticism (in law and theology as well as philosophy) because it substituted a false "reason" for ordinary usage and "convention.?? Language itself, according to Valla, was the product not of nature but of human custom (hominum usus)qui verborumest autor, and Quintilian's formula, consuetudoverocertissimaloquendimagistra); and its principles were to be found not in formal philosophy but in the discipline of rhetoric in particular and the liberal and perhaps fine arts in general, especially since "art" itself was commonly distinguished from, or even regarded as a secondary and derivative form of, "nature." In all of these contexts, over twenty-five centuries or more, one common theme has persisted, and that is the association of the idea and term "custom" and its semantic neighbors with law, rhetoric, grammar, and the European humanist tradition, and in modern times with philosophical and later empirical "anthropology." From the ancient Greek "custom is king" (nomosbasileus;despotesnomos)10 to Bagehot's "cake of custom" and modern ethnographic study of folkways and "norms," "custom" has usually signified forms of what Clifford Geertz has called "local knowledge" and internalist approaches to cultural understanding, often in contrast to the transcendent aspirations of theology, natural philosophy, and most mainstream social science. It is hardly surprising that, philosophically, the idea of custom has commanded little respect-and the notion that it resembled nature was still less acceptable. Rather, for Cicero and Seneca, custom was contrary to nature, and Christian authors inclined to a similar opinion. Both Augustine and Jerome took the idea of "second nature" as a surrender to the corruption both of human nature and of human law and as further alienation from the divine; Clement of Alexandria spoke of "thrusting away custom as some deadly drug"; and Thomas Aquinas identified "second nature"

"Second Nature": The Idea of Custom

133

with the bad habits (malitia) produced by the animal side of human nature." Emblematic of this deep-seated prejudice was the reminder of Cyprian, often repeated (by Luther among others) and preserved in canon law, that Christ had represented himself not as the "custom" but rather as the "truth," referring to John 14: 6, "Sed Dominus noster Christus veritatern se non consuetudinem cognominavit." 12 Yet canon law, while drawing sustenance from patristic authority, increasingly had to come to terms with the limitations of the human condition and in effect with human history and customs, which indeed were conscripted into canonist service. Thus Gratian's Decretum opens with the fundamental proposition that "the human race is ruled in two ways, either by natural law or by unwritten customs"-either by nature or by second nature. 13 This has been a premise of Western social thought which not only antedated but also outlasted the medieval Christian formulation. This brings us to the major premise in the story of "custom," which is that, between ancient Greco-Roman and modern anthropological conceptions, the major formulations have arisen within the world of Western jurisprudence-an intellectual and professional continuum that begins with the earliest stages of the Roman art of law and ends with the earliest stages of modern social science (which was itself in various ways endebted to the study of law)." From Gaius to Max Weber these theorists of custom and law-practitioners of "civil science" (civilisscientiaor civilissapientia;in the words of the Accursian Gloss)-form a "community of interpretation" which, ideological differences aside, has preserved a remarkable continuity of language, method, and conceptualization across many centuries and cultural frontiers. It is in large part out of this hermeneutical and honoratorial (judicial-scholastic-humanistic-scientific) tradition that the idea of custom has taken its modern shape, and this is the elusive target of the present study.

Custom and Law "Custom" was not included among the classicalsources of Roman law, except implicitly in the famous distinction between written and unwritten law (ius scriptum)ius non scriptum); but from the late third century jurists began to recognize custom- "local" and "long" or "longest" custom-in a more formal sense than mere "manners" (mores)or "usage" (usus) or even "prescription." 15 This conventional notion of custom as a product of popu-

134

Donald R. Kelley

lar and "tacit" consent (consensuspopuli) was developed in postclassical jurisprudence, found a permanent home in the Digest, became standard fare in university instruction, and thence passed into the mainstream of European legal, social, political, and cultural thought. The standard definition of custom is attributed to the last of the classical jurists, Hermogenianus, writing in the fourth century: "But also those rules which have been established by ancient custom and observed, like a tacit agreement, are to be followed no less than the rules that are written." 16 Here in a nutshell, with certain other supporting texts, are the essential ingredients of the Western idea of custom, including those developed by the social and cultural sciences: the origins in social behavior, the popular and parochial base, the parity with law, and the element of time. To this locus classicus, however, were added a large number of medieval and modern "extensions," produced by efforts to accommodate Roman ideas to European society. Beginning especially with Azo in civil law and Hostiensis in canon law, theories of consuetudogave definition, intelligible form, relevance, and a kind of legitimacy to the feudal and urban institutions of late medieval Europe, and from there moved into various national traditions. The conceptual umbrella of consuetudohas given shelter to the massive materials gathered in the French coutumiers,in German Gewohnbeusrecbt,and in the Spanish usosand [ueros,as well as in the endless commentaries on all of these accumulations. English common law, according to Bracton, was wholly a product of consuetudo)and it illustrated marvelously the Aristotelian principle of pleasure, or "love" (quoted in this connection by Sir John Fortescue in the later fifteenth century), that "use becomes another nature" (usus alteramfacit naturam)-and specifically that English use was altogether "natural" and "reasonable." 17 In general, medieval discussions of custom were framed by the twin legal concepts of natural law (ius naturale) and the law of nations (iusgentium)-a legalistic version of the distinction between physisand nomos.Another way of stating this fundamental duality was to distinguish between a "primary law of nature" (ius naturaleprimarium or primaevum) based on reason and a "secondary law of nature" (ius naturalesecondarium)based on convention and utility and equivalent to custom." By definition, in any case, "custom" belonged to the realm neither of civil (that is, Roman) law nor of natural law but to the secondary realm of the "law of nations" (ius gentium or ius naturalegentium), including the societies of the New as well as the Old World; and it is in this fundamental legal sense that consuetudo expresses "second nature." What jurists recognized as "customary," of course, was not random

"Second Nature": The Idea of Custom

135

human behavior but more regular social patterns. At the very least, according to a medieval adage which simplified the Aristotelian formula, "Twice makes a custom." 19Beyond this minimum requirement and despite scholastic complications, the European idea of custom preserved the attributes of its classical prototype-the contingent origin, the popular base, the temporal ele1nent, and especially the parity with written law. Custom filled the gap left by the cessation of Carolingian legislation. Though its primary arena was the family, custom became increasingly identified with the usages of feudal society and, attached to the "fief," shifted from a personal to a territorial base. It was given its most concrete expression in the long-enduring institution of the cultivated field (campagne), which Gaston Roupnel called "the characteristic creation of the West ... , the nature and spirit of its civilization."20 In this and other forms European customs made their appearance in local settings and in terms of particular social predicaments for which evidence is scattered in randomly surviving charters, notarial acts, records of inferior jurisdictions, and occasionally oral tradition. As particular coutumeswere gathered, by literate and lawyerly men, on a higher provincial level and became subject to legal interpretation, they helped to shape the idea of custom. Over the centuries the idea of custom was commonly associated with various liberties (libertateset consuetudines),especially feudal but also provincial, municipal, and ecclesiastical.21At first, consuetudoreflected mainly the emergence of the feudal domain-seigneurial rights, jurisdiction, and especially taxes and servitudes, which had gained legitimacy in the course of time. All French customs, wrote an eighteenth-century

commentator,

were only "an expression of the authority of the lord of the fief." It was "custom" in this sense that, from the fourteenth century, was the principal target of peasant revolts. Yet, while capitularies and early charters speak of "new" and "old," of "good" and "bad," customs, consuetudinesnormally referred to accepted local usage. Lords and tenants argued over the application but seldom the meaning of "custom." Even in the peasant uprisings of the seventeenth century, for example, the rebel croquants,while protesting recent impositions, recognized the force not only of long-standing custom but also "new" customs sanctioned by a meeting of the three estates." More formally, the European idea of custom took shape as a reconceptualization of the old Roman idea of consuetudo)which gave local usages intelligibility and a certain borrowed legitimacy. The primary issue was always the relationship between custom and law (jus), and about this "the doctors disagreed," as indeed they have done ever since. A famous summary of this debate appears in a thirteenth-century collection entitled

136

Donald R. Kelley

DissensionesDominorum, in which the contradictions in the classical and postclassical texts are elaborated and exacerbated by modern "interpreters of ancient Roman law"-that is, pre-Accursian glossators." "Some say that no custom, whether special or general, contrary to law abrogates or derogates from [civil] law.... They say that written law abrogates a custom contrary to law.... But others say that a custom which can be confirmed by express consent should be observed, for custom is nothing else than a tacit agreement, according to the Digest. Others say that a good but not a bad custom prevails over a law." Here we can see the idea of custom situated at the very storm center of modern political and constitutional debates. Imperial, royal, and papal ideologists tended normally to argue that law, which was the exclusivemonopoly of the sovereign, always superseded custom; but judicial doctrine inclined to the opposite view, which was that, according to the authoritative Accursian Gloss, "Custom abolishes law" (Consuetudovincit legem), or in the words of Baldus, "Later custom annuls earlier law." 24 Politically, the suggestion was to place the populus above the princepsas a source of law, but the more practical purpose was to reinforce the professional judicial monopoly over legal interpretation. Custom "represents the will of the people," Bartolus wrote (consuetudo repraesentatmentem populi); and so, ultimately, according to the common Aristotelian formula, the people were regarded as the "efficient cause of law" (efficienscausalegiserat olimpopulus).25Or as Bartolus alternatively put it, the four causes included "the natural cause, from [what was] frequently done or performed; the formal, from the consensus [of the people]; the efficient, from the time; and the final, from the rationale, the utility of the custom." In any case, the populuswas the alpha and omega of consuetudo.But what was a "people"? The term and concept of populus) which had been transferred from ancient Rome to the Christian faith (populus christianuswas a common expression of Augustine and Jerome), might be applied from communities ranging from an empire or nation to a village, a monastic community, a guild, or even smaller groups ("ten makes a people," was another medieval adage; decemfaciunt populum); but it was normally defined by adherence to a particular "custom," whether general, provincial, local, or even familial.26 The most difficult question, debated for centuries by jurists and historians alike, was the origin of customary law. The first answer given by scholastic commentators was that custom emerged from social practice"law arises from fact" (lex exfacto oritur) was the often-repeated formula. 27 Custom arose from usage and manners (ab usu et moribus), as Baldus put

"Second Nature": The Idea of Custom

137

it." For centuries this temporalized form of the commonplace distinction between de facto and de jure suggested the pattern of legal development, and it was reinforced by the Augustinian notion that human dominion, public as well as private, was based on force. Not only did law originate, humanly and historically, in custom but, by inference, right originated in might. The element of time remained central to the idea of custom, and so was the notion of historical change. For if custom, representing a process in time, was continually being created, it was also and concomitantly becoming obsolete: consuetudowas ever counterbalanced by desuetudo,counterpart of the dual Aristotelian process of generation and corruption. In many ways, Odofredus observed, "custom today has changed" (mutata est hodieamsuetudoi." In the sixteenth century Philippe Bugnyon devoted a whole treatise to laws which, "today" (hodie)had fallen "out of usage" (ab usu longerecessit;horsdJusage)through contradictions, confusion, and (in a modern sense) "abuse." 30 Customs were tied to geographical as well as historical conditions. Technically, the rule was that "place determines act" (locusregit actus) or formam actus), but the more general premise was that both laws and judgments had to be in accord with the character and environment of a people. "The customs of a region must be followed," wrote Azo (consuetudinesregionis servandaesunt); and local custom, according to the fourteenthcentury Somme Rurale of Jean Bouteiller, was to be in accord with the "situation of a place" as determined by the local inhabitants." Local customs should be followed, wrote Beaumanoir, "because we ought to remember what since childhood we have seen in use and judged in our province better than in others of which we do not know the customs and usages."32Such assumptions-that "local knowledge" had to be joined to high theory and general norms-furnished a sort of geohistorical base for philosophical and "scientific" as well as practical jurisprudence, and for less professional forms of social and cultural thought.

From Memory to Written Record For historians as well as jurists, the essential question is how, concretely, custom was promoted from a social to a legal and even political level, how it came not only to "represent" but also to regulate the behavior of people. Here we confront a fundamental problem much discussed in recent years, which is the link between oral and scribal or literate culture." How did

138

Donald R. Kelley

custom pass from unrecorded, collective memory to authoritative written form? How, more technically, was consuetudotransformed into jus consuetudinarium?How, more specifically,did French coutumesbecome droit civil, German Gewohnheitbecome allgemeinesRecht, and English customs become "common law"? In theory, the answer came from simple social inquiry and judgment. As the English civilian John Cowell wrote, "It is enough for the profe of a custom by witness in the common lawe (as I have credibly heard), if two or more can agree, that they have heard their fathers say, that it was a custome all their time and that their fathers heard their fathers also say, that it was likewise a custome in their time."34This definition was equivalent to the "immemorial custom" celebrated by common lawyers like Cowell's nemesis Edward Coke and Matthew Hale (though it emphasized human testimony as well as judicial intuition), but it also held for continental customs, which were likewise authenticated transcriptions of popular memory. The essential problem was one of "proof" or "approval," and it could be resolved in several ways. In primitive or preliterate societies no proof was called for; or rather the members of that society were themselves "living proof" of their customs. In more complex cultures a certain level of expertise was required, and in medieval Europe this meant first law-finders or lay "sayers of the law" (sapientes,diseursde droit, Gesetzsprecher), who consulted their own memories or consciences, and then of more formally trained jurists, who claimed special expertise, or rather who received it from higher authority. 35 From the twelfth century or earlier, "proof" implied the "redaction" of customs into written form, and to begin with this was a matter of private recording, exemplified by the Libri Feudorum assembled by Obertus de Orto and Girardus Niger, the anonymous Establissementsde SaintLouis, the coutumesof Beauvaisis by Philippe de Beaumanoir, the Sachsenspiegelby Eike von Repgow, the SietePartidas of Alfonso the Wise, and perhaps the treatises of Glanvil and Bracton, which all gained authority only in retrospect. These collections represented not only a shift "from memory to written record" (in the words of M. T. Clanchy) but also the outcome of what Eugen Ehrlich called a "universalizing process," by which local customs were formulated and expanded geographically by judicial decisions and precedents." This process was intensified by the introduction of more formal "Romano-canonical" procedures and by the teaching of civil and canon law in the universities. Yet the institutions of popular approval were ostensibly retained. According to the fourteenth-century Grand CoustumierdeFranceby Jacques

"Second Nature": The Idea of Custom

139

d'Ableiges, custom was to be "proved by a meeting of ten men worthy of faith" (prouvesen turbepar dix hommesdignesdeJoy);and a little later Jean Bouteiller, in his Sommerurale, declared that custom was to be proved "by twelve of the wisest and oldest men of the place" (douze hommeslesplus sageset anciensdu lieu).37 As Gilles Fortin wrote three centuries later of the coutumeof Paris, "This customary law was for a long time observed without being written or engraved anywhere except on the hearts of the citizens who keep it; and if in doubt, the proof was not in books but in the assemblies [turbes]of those who knew the practice and ordinary usage" 38 (Fig. 4.1). In France the development of custom from unwritten usages to learned doctrine, from fact to law, and from jurisprudence to legal philosophy, can be followed with some precision. The story begins in the thirteenth century when the central government began to take a serious interest in local customs, bound up as they were with the rival interests of feudal, seigneurial, and urban courts. By an ordinance of 1270 St. Louis instituted the device of the collective inquest (inquisitioper turbamJ enquetepar turbe), or rather adapted the old Carolingian inquest, designed originally to establish facts in criminal cases, to the authentication of local customs." According to this ordinance, the royal commissioners (enqueteurs)convoked a certain number of sworn "wise men" representing the three estates, then proposed a series of customs for their consideration, and wrote down the customs mutually agreed upon. This dramatic confrontation between king and people is a model of the aforesaid transition "from memory to written record." The assembled turbiersnot only affirmed the existence-and more specifically the common and acknowledged "notoriety" -of each coutume,but they were also required to demonstrate the most minute "local knowledge." According to one thirteenth-century formulary, the members of the turbe were asked if they had ever "seen judgment by the said custom, and how many times, and by what judges, and between which persons, and at what time . . . and if all or the better part of the people agreed to introduce this custom."40 Then, after unanimous agreement about the wording, the royal enquiteurs set the custom down in writing, leaving the delegates of the people to speak then or forever hold their peace. As for the organization of topics, sometimes the text followed Roman order, (persons, things, actions), sometimes feudal order (that is, beginning with "fief" or feudal jurisdiction and going on to questions of manorial rights, kinship, marriage, succession, and so forth). In this process of "redaction" first the old "wise men" and later the

LA

COVSTVME PAR I S, DE

CONFERE~E .AVEC LES .,/,VTRES

EXPLIS